Jonas
Prophetia JonæIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
J. is the hero of the book of the same name, the fifth among the minor prophets of the Hebrew and Latin Bible, the sixth in the Greek. The book contains no discourses, but an episode from the life of J.
Sent by Yahweh to preach penance to Nineveh, capital of the Assyrian Empire, oppressor of Israel, J. refuses and seeks to escape God's command by embarking at Joppa on a Phoenician ship. A storm breaks out, and the lot points to J. as the guilty one. Thrown into the sea, he is swallowed by a great fish (ch. 1). In its belly J. composes a canticle (a true psalm) and after 3 days is vomited onto the Palestinian coast (ch. 2). After a new command, J. brings to Nineveh the message of destruction: in 40 days the capital will be destroyed. The inhabitants do penance and Yahweh forgives them (ch. 3). This is what J. did not want; he grows angry and calls for death. Yahweh reproaches him for such a feeling of hatred and instructs him concerning His mercy, which wills even the Gentiles to be saved, by means of the castor-oil plant that grew but then withered on the same day, this time to J.'s keen regret (ch. 4).
Haydock
Jonas prophesied in the reign of Jeroboam II, as we learn from 4 Kings xiv. 25., to whom also he foretold his success in restoring all the borders of Israel. He was of Geth-Opher, in the tribe of Zabulon, and consequently of Galilee; which confutes that assertion of the Pharisees, (John 7:52.) that no prophet ever arose out of Galilee. He prophesied and prefigured in his own person the death and resurrection of Christ, and was the only one among the prophets who was sent to preach to the Gentiles. (Challoner) --- The most incredible mystery in our religion, and the vocation of the Gentiles, are thus insinuated. (Calmet) --- The latter shall be saved if they repent, like Ninive. (Worthington) --- [Thomas?] Paine's supposition, that this book was written by a pagan "to satirise the malignant character of a predicting priest," requires no refutation. (Haydock) (Watson)
Douay 1582/1609
IONAS the sonne of Amathi in Geth, of the tribe of Zabulon, in the Mat. 12. Luc. 11. Ionas a figure of Christ prophecied saluation to al nations. reigne of Ieroboam sonne of Ioas king of Israel, not only in wordes, but also in his person prophecied, and prefigured Christ; as our Sauiour S. Ierom. Epost ad Paulin. himself testisieth. And vnder the name of Niniue announceth saluation to al Gentiles, that repent, and returne to God, as Niniue did.
Cornely
8 95. — De Prophetia Ionae.
307. — I. DE PROPHETAE VITA LIBRIQUE ARGUMENTO. — (Quin propheta lonas filius Amathi, de cuius missione ninivitica quintus inter Prophetarum Minorum libellos agit, idem ille sit propheta Ionas filius Amathi, qui leroboamo II. regi Israel praedixit, eum restituturum esse terminos Israel ab introitu Emath usque ad mare solitudinis (& Reg. 14,25), nemini est dubium. Ex regno septemtrionali igitur et quidem ex tribu Zabulon erat oriundus; natus enim dicitur in « Geth, quae est in Opher » (s2nà n2 1. c.), Gethhepher autem ad tribum Zabulon pertinuit
Continue reading 25 paragraphs
(Jos. 19,13). « Porro Geth,, inquit S. Hieronymus, in secundo Saphorim (Sephoris) milliario, quae hodie appellatur Diocaesarea, euntibus Tiberiadem haud grandis est viculus, ubi et sepulcrum eius ostenditur »!, Quoniam leroboamo felicem exitum bellorum contra Syros praedixit, ineunte iam saec. 8. vocationem propheticani acceperat; de reliqua autem eius vita nihil certi nobis est traditum, nisi quae in nostro libro leguntur. Illa igitur hoc iam loco proponere haud ab re ducimus, ut uno conspectu illis exhibitis, quae de propheta certo nobis sunt cognita, deinde in libri ipsius indolem et auctorem inquiramus. Pro duplici autem mandato, quo Ionas in urbe Ninive praedicare iussus est, uno, cui fuga se subtrahere conatus est, altero, cui obedivit, libellus apte in duas partes dividitur (1,1-2,11; 3,1- 5,11). I. PRioR IoNAE Missio AD NiNIVITAS (1,1 - 2,11). 1. Ionae fuga el castigatio (1,1-16). a.) Ionas filius Amathi a Deo Ninivitis poenitentiam praedicare iussus conscensa navi in Tharsis (Tartessum) fugere conatus est (1,4 -3); b.) subito autem exorta tempestate nautae timentes ad preces confugerunt et sorlem miserunt, quibus calamitatis causam cognoscerent (1,4- 7); sors vero designavit Ionam, qui fugam suam esse causam calamitatis professus nautas exhortatur, ut ipsum ad tempestatem sedandam in mare mittant (1,8- 12). c.) Qui prius abnuentes postea, quum fugere non possent, eum e navi eiiciunt atque statim sedatum est mare; qua de re admirati sacrificia Domino obtulerunt (1,13 -16).
a.) onam vero in mare missum et a magno pisce deglutitum Deus in ventre piscis vivum servavit (2,1. 2); b.) atque propheta de salute obtenta psalmo quodam Deo gratias agit. Precationem suam a Deo exauditam esse praefatus (2,3) periculum in quo versatus est auxiliumque acceptum describit (2,4. 5. 6-8) atque terminat hymnum gratiarum actione (2,9. 10).
c.) Deo autem iubente piscis prophetam in terram eiicit (2,11).
a.) Secunda vice propheta Ninivitis praedicare iussus statim proficiscitur et urbis Ninive proximum interitum annuntiat (3,1 - A).
b.) Qua praedicatione audita Ninivitae una cum eorum rege seriam poenitentiam egerunt, ut iram divinam averterent (3,5-9);
€.) poenitentia autem Deus permotus est, ut minas suas exsecutioni non daret (3,10).
a.) Quum Deum Ninivitis poenitentibus parcere vidisset, propheta de hac misericordia cum Deo expostulavit sibique mortem exoptavit ; quapropter primo leniter a Deo increpatus est (4,4 -4).
b.) Igitur egressus de civitate, ut videret quid perpessura sit, sibi umbraculum fecit, iuxta quod Deus paravit hederam (ricinum), cuius umbra protegeretur et cuius subito interitu erudiretur propheta; planta enim a verme corrosa mox exaruit et novam Ionae iram provocavit (8,5- 8).
c.) Interroganti Deo, num iuste irasci sibi videatur, affirmat propheta, unde Dominus eum corripit monens, si de rei tam vilis interitu doleat homo, nihil esse mirandum, quod divina misericordia civi: tati tam amplae pepercerit (8,9- 11).
Quo tempore leroboam II. (802-762), sub quo Ionam filium Amathi vixisse constat, thronum regni Israel occupavit, Assyria tres reges sibi succedentes vidit Rammannirar (810-782), Salmanasar III. vel V. (781- T2), Assurdanil (771-7755). Primus ex eis fortissimus fuit rex, cuius expeditionibus felicibus regni fines late extendebantur atque ex Asiae citerioris quoque populis Phoenices, Syri, Idumaei, Israelitae ad tributum solvendum aut ad hegemoniam agnoscendam adducti sunt. Sub eius autem successoribus declinare coepit imperium assyriacum; continuae fere erant Armeniorum rebelliones contra Salmanasar, frequentiores et graviores aliorum populorum rebelliones contra Assurdanil, atque ad tantam debilitatem redactum est regnum, ut eius successori Assurnirar (753-745) Chaldaeus Phul thronum eriperet , qui deinde sub nomine Theglatphalasar imperium assyriacum ad novum potentiae fastigium adducere coepit. Quisnam fuerit rex, qui prophetae praedicatione permotus est, ut una cum populo suo poenitentiam perageret, cum certitudine quidem dicere non possumus; verisimile autem est , Ionam tempore regis Assurdanil in urbe Ninive praedicasse; neque enim perturbationibus tantum internis regnum eo tempore concutiebatur, sed bis quoque (a. 765. et 759.) gravi pestilentia terram vastatam incolasque solis eclipsi perterritos esse ex assyriaco eponymorum catalogo constat?. Atque profecto, « si Ionae missio incidit in tempus, quo imperium ab antiquo splendore recedere et peste et variis seditionibus ac periculis concuti coeptum est, quo igitur Ninivitae iam partim a prisca superbia et gloria deiecti, partim variis terroribus et calamitatibus perterriti imperii imminutionem vel ruinam facile suspicari vel saltem timere poterant, ne tale quid immineret, facilius nobis explanare poterimus, cur prophetae Domini voces ac minae tantum subito iis incusserint timorem , tantam excitaverint poenitentiam morumque derepente mutationem » ?. Quapropter si a praecipua conversionis causa, divinam dico gratiam, qua Assyriorum animi sunt illustrati et perculsi, abstrahere liceret, tamen non tantopere foret mirandum, quod ad vocem prophetae, cuius Deum àut ignorabant aut saltem non colebant, attendere voluerint. Assyriorum enim eam fuisse superstitionem, ut magorum et vatum verbis summam adhiberent fidem, eorum inscriptiones superstites docent; ex quibus illud quoque elucet, quod suos deos colentes nequaquam negarint potentiam deorum, qui ab aliis populis colebantur, sed illos timuerint sibique propitios reddere studuerint *. Multo facilius igitur explicatur, quod ad veri Dei vocem attendere voluerint divinae gratiae obsecuti.
Atque haec sunt, quae de prophetae vita nobis certa sunt tradita aut verisimilia coniiciuntur; quae plura tradunt antiqui rabbini , ea utpote omni fide indigna praetermittimus 5.
Prop. IV. p. 314 sq., Carpzov. Introd. III. p. 336 sqq. — Secundum $. Hier. 1. c. sepultus est in Geth Hepher (El Mesched), ubi hodie quoque eius sepulcrum a Mahummetanis veneratur (Guérin l. c.); alterum eius sepulcrum iidem venerantur in ruinis quibusdam hodie Nebbi Iunus appcellatis prope antiquam Ninivem; de quo cfr Vigourouz l.l. c. p. 77; « at Mahummetanos, inquit Huet. ]. c., delirare sinamus, qui non longe a Ninives ruderibus Ionam sepultum fuisse censent eiusque tumulum venerantur ».
308. — II. DE LIBRI INDOLE, AUCTORITATE, ORIGINE. — Prorsus singularem locum inter omnes propheticos libros « Prophetia lIonae » occupat, quoniam non sicut alii exhortationes et praedictiones exhibet, sed rem aliquam gestam narrat; at res haec gesta ipsa est et exhortatio et praedictio. Etenim « lonas, inquit S. Hieronymus, naufragio suo passionem Christi praefigurans mundum ad poenitentiam revocat et sub nomine Ninive salutem gentibus nuntiat »!. Non primus quidem propheta fuit, cuius ministerio Deus apud gentes usus est, ut se omnium populorum Deum esse ostenderet suamque potentiam et misericordiam, qua etiam gentilium saluti providet, manifestaret. Nam antea Elias iam ad viduam sareptanam erat missus, ut tempore famis magno miraculo ei potius, quam viduis israeliticis, succurreret (3 Reg. 17,8 sqq.; Luc. 4,26), atque Eliseus non tantum Naaman Syrum a lepra mundaverat (& Reg. 5,15 ; Luc. 4,21), sed etiam Damascum profectus Hazaeli, quem Deus velut instrumentum ad puniendos Israelitas elegerat, futuram regiam dignitatem victoriasque de Israelitis praedixerat (4 Reg. 8, 12 sqq.). Ionas autem primus fuit, qui praedicto civitatis interitu gentibus magnitudinem Domini disertius manifestare easque ad veri Dei agnitionem et ad poenitentiam adducere debuit. Cum Daniele igitur non incongrue comparari potest, cuius ministerio etiam usus est Dominus, ut Chaldaeis postea et Persis suam magnitudinem manifestaret ; quapropter libellum nostrum historicum eodem cum iure, quo sex priora capita Danielis, inter propheticos libros receptum esse satis recte asseritur. Porro promptissima sollicitudo, qua Ninivitae praedicanti prophetae aures praebuerunt atque ad primum eius monitum poenitentiam agere coeperunt, efficacissima erat Israelitarum increpatio, quippe qui longe maioribus beneficiis a Domino ditati eum tamen alienis idolis continuo postponerent neque frequentibus tot prophetarum minis et monitis ad eum se reduci sinerent. Quem missionis lonae finem Dominus ipse manifestavit, quando viros Ninivitas dixit surrecturos esse in iudicio cum generatione ista eamque condemnaturos, quia poenitentiam egerint in praedicatione Ionae (Matth. 19,51). Libellus igitur noster, etsi prophetae nostri missionem ad gentes dumtaxat narret, non minus quam reliquorum prophetarum exhortationes, Israelitarum conversioni proxime est destinatus ideoque locum inter prophetica scripta meretur. Demum etiam strictiore sensu propheticus est dicendus.
lonae praedicatio inter gentes Ninivitarumque conversio merito pro praesagio futurae vocationis et conversionis gentium ad fidem habetur, atque propheta ipse post triduum e ventre ceti vivus egrediens est praeclarissimus typus Domini post triduum gloriose e sepulcro resurgentis; qui typus a Christo ipso non semel assertus, ubi de « signo Ionae » loquitur, et ab Apostolis saltem indicatus ab omnibus Christi fidelibus semper est agnitus?. Alias quoque typicas rationes in historia Ionae deprehenderunt Patres et interpretes?; sed duae, quas innuimus, quum utpote a Christo manifestatae omne dubium excludant, demonstrando prophetico libri characteri plane sufficiunt. Licet igitur simplici stylo historico miraculosam Ionae liberationem Ninivitarumque conversionem narret, libris strictiore sensu propheticis iustissime adnumeratus est.
In vita prophetae narranda (307.) veram eius historiam in libello nostro tradi supposuimus , idque optimo nostro iure. Neque enim quisquam ante exortum rationalismum de Azstorica eius auctoritate dubitavit, atque inter auctoritatis testes unum habemus omni exceptione maiorem, ipsum Dominum N. lesum Christum. Qui quum eodem in contextu atque eadem prorsus ratione, qua de regina Saba ad Salomonem veniente, de Iona tribus diebus et tribus noctibus in veutre ceti vivente et de Ninivitis in praedictione prophetae poenitentiam agentibus loquitur (Math. 129,40-20), eandem procul dubio libello nostro, quam libris Regum, auctoritatem historicam attribuit, neque minus Ionae miraculosam conservationem et praedicationem niniviticam, quam reginae Saba iter ad Salomonem , pro factis vere historicis habuit. Frustra et temere obiiciunt moderni rationalistae, Christum argumentum ad hominem adhibuisse et ex supposito miraculo, quod Iudaei pro vero admittebant, esse argumentatum *; neque animadvertunt Dominum eodem in loco asserere : « Viri Ninivitae surgent in judicio cum generatione ista et condemnabunt eam, quia poenitentiam egerunt in praedicatione Ionae »; num forte Iudaei etiam crediderunt, se condemnatum iri a Ninivitis, an concedent adversarii, Dominum potuisse erroneam ludaeorum opinionem de conversione Ninivitarum erroneo asserto confirmare et positive approbare? Testimonio Christi alia argumenta addere per se superfluum est; adnotemus tamen totam narrationem ita esse comparatam, ut dubitare nemo possit, quin rem vere gestam tradere auctor voluerit; alio modo proponi a scriptoribus sacris parabolas iam saepe diximus. Ad narrationis autem rationem quod atlinet, nemo opinor ne minimam quidem differentiam inveniet inter nostri libri miracula et inter miracula, quae ab Elia, Eliseo aliisque prophetis patrata libri sacri tradunt. Quod assertum quam verum sit, satis elucet ex eo, quod ad unum omnes antiqui Patres et interpretes ConxEzLY INTROD. II. 2. — 36 et theologi et laici, quum hunc librum legerent, veram se historiam legere crediderint; neque solis Christianis, sed etiam ludaeis eadem semper fuit persuasio.
Qui status rerum mutatus est exorto rationalismo; unanimi enim consensu historicum libri characterem negarunt, at innumera sunt systemata, quibus negationem suam cohonestare et veritate narrationis negata librum explicare conati sunt. Primi rationalistae, quum miraculosa Ionae conservatione maxime offenderentur, naturali quodam modo eam explicare voluerunt : scilicet Ionae somnianti illud accidere visum est, quod de tempestate, de eius eieclione in mare etc. narratur, atque somnio impulsus est, ut statim iter niniviticum arriperet (Grimm; Sonnenberg); aut Ionas non in ventre piscis viventis sed in cadavere piscis paullo antea occisi ad litus maris est advectus (Anton; Griessdorf; Vaupel); aut ex nave, quae Tartessum petebat, in aliam navem piscis insigni instructam transcendit et in patriam reversus est (Less); aut tempestas, mare, piscis non sunt nisi symbola animi huc illuc fluctuantis et incerti, num monito divino sit obtemperandum (Palmer) etc. Atque hi quidem missionem niniviticam prophetae pro vera admiserunt; secuti sunt alii, qui hanc quoque negarunt et integram narrationem in allegoriam vel mythum transmutarunt : sub fictis nominibus historiam regum Manasse et Iosiae narrari docuit von der Hardt; Andromedae vel Hesionae mythos a Graecis ad Iudaeos allatos et ab his in Ionae historiam transformatos esse coniecerunt Rosenmüller, Gesenius , Krahmer ; babylonicum mythum de deo-pisce Oanne arcessivit F. C. Baur etc*. Quas ineptias longiore explanatione aut refutatione indignas esse patet. Moderni « critici » demum plerique meram parabolam in libello proponi tenent; at si interrogaveris quid tandem ista parabola doceat, tot fere sententias esse invenies, quot « criticos » libelli nostri interpretes $.
Quibus utpote prorsus arbitrariis praetermissis argumenta potius examini subiiciamus, quibus nixi historicam auctoritatem libri negant. Primum et praecipuum, ne dicam, unicum eorum argumentum constituunt miracula narrata, quae credi posse negant. Ne sola tamen miraculi aversione duci ac regi videantur, alias nonnullas ratiunculas conquisiverunt, quibus eam occultarent. Credi posse negant missionem prophetae israelitici ad ethnicos, conversionem subitam Ninivitarum, totamque agendi rationem prophetae, demum psalmum cap. 2. relatum parum esse aptum. Quibus addunt alii, nec nominari regem assyriacum, sub quo Ionas Niniven venerit, nec locum in quo a pisce in aridam sit eiectus, nec quidquam referri de ulterioribus prophetae fatis vel rebus gestis, quae omnia procul dubio essent indicata, si liber rem vere gestam narraret?.
Miracula libri nostri iam olim a paganis multo cachinno graviter irrisa esse tradit S. Augustinus; ad quaestionem autem propositam, quid de illis sentiendum sit, respondet: « quod aut omnia divina miracula credenda non sint, aut haec cur non credantur causa nulla sit. [n ipsum autem Christum, quod tertio die resurrexerit, non crederemus, si fides Christianorum cachinnum metueret paganorum (et rationalistarum)... Multum miror hoc quod factum est de Iona amicum nostrum pro incredibili posuisse, nisi forte facilius putat mortuum de sepulcro resuscitari, quam vivum in tam vasto ventre belluae potuisse servari » etc. ?. In miracula ipsa accuratius inquirunt interpretes, nec nostri muneris est definire, ad quam speciem pertinuerit piscis, a quo propheta est absorptus, aut planta, quae tam cito crevit et exaruit; adversariis enim , quibuscum nobis res est, quum ullum miraculum fieri negent, ad fidem non adducemus miraculis libri nostri diminutis; quapropter primum et praecipuum eorum argumentum praetermittimus cum S. Augustino dicentes : « rideant Scripturas nostras; quantum possunt rideant, dum per singulos dies rariores paucioresque se videant vel moriendo vel credendo; dum implentur omnia, quae praedixerunt qui hos contra veritatem inaniter pugnaturos, vane latraturos, paullatim defecturos tanto antea riserunt nobisque posteris suis non solum ea legenda dimiserunt verum experienda promiserunt » (l. c. 32).
Quae reliqua primario suo argumento addiderunt, paucis absolvere licet. Cur missio Ionae ad Ninivitas credi nequeat, nemo facile dixerit, qui Deum plerisque populis ethnicis, quamprimum cum populo electo commercium quodcunque habere coeperunt, suam potertiam revelasse consideraverit : in memoriam revocentur Ioseph et Moyses inter Aegyptios, miracula facta per Iosue ad populi ingressum in Chanaan, miracula Eliae in Phoenicia, Elisei miracula et vaticinia inter Syros etc. ; quid igitur mirum in eo, quod eo tempore, quo Assyrii suas incursiones in Israel inceperunt, Dominus se eis per Ionam revelaverit, uti postea Chaldaeis et Persis per Danielem? Nonne etiam eo tempore, quo Iudaei cum Graecis aliisque populis occidentalibus commercium habere coeperunt, versione graeca Scripturarum se illis manifestavit? — Quid de Ninivitarum conversione sentiendum sit, supra (307 p. 558 sq.) diximus; de agendi ratione prophetae statim dicemus, ubi de libri origine agemus; Psalmus cp. 2. relatus autem cur velut parum aptus repudietur, iterum non intelligitur; uti enim recte monet Knabenbauer « duo ex ipsa re nata animum orantis commovent atque replent : periculi domiciliique horror, salutis desiderium et spes; hisce eius oratio constat, quae vivide refert animi affectus et quasi sponte sua ex occasione data nascitur !?. — Quae demum ultimo loco a nonnullis adduntur, vere frivola sunt et futilia ; obiectio enim, si quidquam valeret, non tantum nostri libelli, sed vix non omnium librorum sacrorum et profanorum auctoritati historicae destruendae sufficeret. Quis enim unquam scriptor omnium personarum aut locorum, de quibus agit, nomina affert aut fata narrat? Ubinam inveniuntur nomina regum aegypliacorum, quorum tempore Abraham, loseph. Moyses in Aegypto versati sunt etc.? Scilicet auctores ea sola narrare solent, quae ad finem sibi praestitutum necessaria aut utilia ducunt. Ridiculum profecto foret, si quis in libello nostro quaereret, quamnam pecuniae summam propheta pro naulo ex Ioppe usque Tartessum solvisset, aut quo nomine appellatus esset gubernator navis aliaque eiusmodi; sed vix minus ridicula sunt illa, quae in libello nostro quaerunt rationalistae. Procul dubio curiositati nostrae satiandae illa omnia inservirent, si tradita essent, at libri sacri et prophetici vanae curiositati satiandae non sunt destinati.
Restat quaestiuncula de libelli nostri auctore, « quem ab omni aetate semper creditum esse lonam ipsum », suo tempore recte asseruit Goldhagen"', sed hodie non amplius asseri potest, siquidem rationalistae una cum libri auctoritate historica etiam eius propheticam originem negarunt eumque aut exsilii aetate aut 4. vel 3. vel 2. saeculo scriptum esse contendunt !?, At non tantum nulla idonea affertur ratio, qua a tradita sententia recedere cogimur !?, sed non desunt, quae eam amplectendam esse suadeant. Quo inscriptio quidem libri non pertinet, quippe quae non magis quam similes inscriptiones librorum Esther, ludith etc. auctorem prodit. At iure merito traditam sententiam confirmamus loco, quem libellus in canone obtinet; vix enim quisquam prudens sibi persuadebit, collectores canonis narrationem hanc, quae indole sua a reliquis-libris propheticis differre omnino videtur, inter prophetas recepturos fuisse, nisi illis de prophetica eius origine constitisset. Atque Ecclesiasticus quoque, si post Isaiam, Ieremiam, Ezechielem, qui librorum suorum ipsi erant auctores, de « duodecim prophetis » loquitur, eadem, opinor, ratione Ionam libelli nomine eius inscripti auctorem esse asseruit, qua undecim reliquos pro auctoribus librorum nominibus eorum inscriptorum habuit. Quibus accedit ratio interna eaque non levis. Mores prophetae quam maxime displicent adversariis nostris, mirumque in modum stultitiam exaggerant, qua divino praecepto fuga se subtrahere conatus est, crudelitatem , qua totius civitatis interitum videre desideravit, audaciam , qua cum Deo disceptavit etc. ^; atque fateamur oportet, in nonnullis iure reprehendi prophetam. Iam vero quod Ionas ipse ingenua et humili confessione peccata sua scriptis tradiderit, id nisi omnia nos fallunt facilius intelligitur, quam quod alter scriptor viri, qui velut propheta a populo suo venerabatur, humanam infirmitatem tam nude et aperte depingere voluerit. Quapropter traditae sententiae inhaerere non dubitamus !*.
De divina auctoritate libri disserere opus non est, quoniam a Domino ipso illum pro divino esse adhibitum iam vidimus, illumque in canone duodecim prophetarum semper fuisse omnes consentiunt.
resurrecturum esse, non uno quidem in loco est praedictum, eum autem tertia die resurrecturum esse solo typo Ionae est praedictum; unde merito colligimus, Domi-
(a) Verba quae uncis inclusimus in antiquioribus codd. graec., ital., copt. etc., non leguntur el a Tischendorf, Hort- Westcott omittuntur; ceterum si genuina sunt, idem remanet sensus, secundum Scripturas debuisse Christum pati et tertia die resurgere.
num N. hanc typicam explicationem etiam discipulos suos docuisse.
forte adversarii imperfectum synchronisticum non agnoscunt? Si quis hodie ultimum bellum gallico-borussiacum narrare volens belli causis exposllis pergeret : « Gallia autem et Germania erant regna potentissima », num forte hodiernam carum exsistentiam aut potentiam negaret? — d.) « Universalisticum auctoris consilium » demum recentiorem aetatem demonstrare dicitur; universalisticum autem consilium in eo deprehenditur, quod Deus etiam ethnicis, si poenitentiam agant, poenam remittat (De Wette Schrader p. 463). Igitur etiam Oseam et Ioelem recentiori aetati adscribamus, in quibus iam S. Paulus (Rom. 9,11 sqq. 25 sq.) universalisticum consilium detexit, aut Isaiam, qui plenus est universalisticis sententiis (Is. 2,2 sqq.), vel potius
Cornelius a Lapide
Argument 22 paragraphs
"The Lord ruleth me, and I shall want nothing. In a place of pasture there he hath placed me." And the Apostle, who prayeth this one thing for his own: "Now the Lord direct your hearts in the love of God and in the patience of Christ," II Thess. cap. III, 5. Come now, O Lord, rule our heart, that it may obey no one, surrender itself to none but thee, that it may be directed by none but thee and by thy charity and patience breathed into us toward undertaking all difficult things for thy love, and bearing all hardships with constancy. Rule likewise our tongue, that it may speak naught but thy praises; rule our hands, that they may handle and accomplish whatsoever pleaseth thee; rule our feet, that with unfaltering step they may be borne toward all good. To thee with the bride in the Canticles we sigh and cry out: "Draw me after thee: we will run in the odour of thy ointments. My beloved to me, and I to him, who feedeth among the lilies. I to my beloved, and his turning is toward me.
Put me as a seal upon thy heart, as a seal upon thy arm." This is the one desire of our soul, this the sum of our prayers, that thou mayest reign in us through grace, and make us come to thy heavenly kingdom, where is the manifest vision of thee, the perfect love of thee, the blessed society of thee, the eternal fruition of thee; that on that last and decisive day of the world, which shall be the horizon of blessed and miserable eternity, separating the elect from the reprobate unto all ages, we may deserve to hear thee exulting: "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, in which there shall be obtained for us certain security, secure tranquility, tranquil joy, happy eternity, eternal happiness, where is perfect love, no fear, eternal day, eager motion, and one spirit of all," saith St. Augustine in Meditations, cap. ultimo.
St. Jerome, epistle to Paulinus: "Jonas," saith he, "a most beautiful dove, by his shipwreck prefiguring the passion of the Lord, recalls the world to penance; and under the name of Nineveh announces salvation to the gentiles." Thou wilt ask, who, what manner of man, and when was Jonas? Certain Hebrews, whom St. Dorotheus follows in the Life of Jonas, assert that Jonas was the son of a widow, whom Elias restored to life when dead; who, made a prophet and sent to Nineveh, afterwards, having taken his mother, fled into Assyria; for he thought: In this way I shall remove the reproach upon me which I falsely acquired by prophesying against Nineveh: "He gave signs over Jerusalem and all the land, namely a stone miserably crying out that the end draweth nigh, and when Jerusalem should be trampled by all nations, that then that city should be destroyed." Thus far Dorotheus. The same in all respects, except for the crying stone, St. Epiphanius hath in the Life of Jonas. Hear also St. Isidore in Jonas: "Jonas a dove and sorrowful, son of Amathi of the city Geth, is sent to the preaching to the gentiles, sent he contemneth, contemning he fleeth, fleeing he sleepeth, on account of whom the ship was in peril, but the lot found him sleeping. The Hebrews relate that this was the son of a widow, whom Elias raised from the dead: whose sepulchre is shown in a certain one of the cities of Geth in a village, which is in the second milestone of Sepphoris, on the way by which one goeth to Tiberias." The Hebrews add in the Seder Olam, and from them Mariana, that Jonas was that young man, whom Elisaeus sent to anoint Jehu as king, IV Kings cap. IX, 1, who-
nabbat Ozias, or Azarias; for thus it is had, IV Kings cap. xiv, 25: "He (Jeroboam) restored the borders of Israel from the entrance of Emath not far from Damascus, even to the sea of the wilderness (that is the lake Asphaltites) according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spoke by his servant Jonas, the son of Amathi the prophet, who was of Geth, which is in Hopher." For that this Jonas is our prophet is evident, both because the same father Amathi is named in both places, the same country Geth; and because Josephus lib. IX Antiq. cap. xi, St. Jerome, Theophylactus and many others here assert it. Where note in passing that the Prophets did not all write their prophecies, or, if they wrote them, some have perished. For this prophecy of Jonas concerning the desolation of Damascus and Emath, and concerning the restoration of the borders of Israel to be made by Jeroboam, is not found in the book of Jonas. Again from the words already cited it is clear that Jonas was descended from Geth. Now this Geth was a city, not that of the Philistines (for Jonas was a Hebrew, not a Philistine), although St. Epiphanius, St. Dorotheus and Rupertus understood it thus, but that which is in Hopher, belonging to the tribe of Zebulun, concerning which St. Jerome in the Prologue: "Geth," saith he, "in the second milestone of Sepphoris, which is today called Diocaesarea, going to Tiberias is not a large village, where also his sepulchre is shown. Although others according to Diospolis, that is Lydda, wish him to have been born and buried, not understanding that what is added, Hopher, pertaineth to the distinction of other cities of Geth, which-
is shown near Eleutheropolis, or Diospolis even today. Jonas therefore was a Zebulonite, namely of Geth, not of Sarepta: therefore neither was he the son of a widow of Sarepta.
But what these authors think, that Jonas was the son of the widow of Zarephath, and consequently lived in the time of Elias, is false, and is refuted by the same reasons by which I proved at the beginning that Abdias did not live in the time of Elias and King Achab of Israel. Add that this Jonas lived in the time of Jeroboam, who reigned in Israel at the time when Ozias, or Azarias, reigned in Juda.
praised Jehu for the cutting off of the house of Achab, IV Kings cap. x, 30. Others add that the father of Jonas was the prophet Abdias: for he was the husband of the widow of Zarephath.
Jonas therefore prophesied in the time of Abdias and the preceding Prophets, namely Osee, Joel and Amos under Jeroboam, Azarias and their successors. Thus the Hebrews, St. Jerome, Theophylactus, Eusebius in the Chronicle; Clement of Alexandria, I Stromata; St. Augustine, lib. XVIII of the City of God xxvii; Abulensis in lib. IV Kings cap. IX, Question III, and others, hand down.
said to Elias raising him: "Now in this I know that thou art a man of God, and the word of the Lord in thy mouth is true," III Kings, cap. xvii, 24. But these are frivolous. For it is clear that literally not the mother, but the father of Jonas was named Amathi.
Allegorically Jonas is Christ, who is the son of Amathi, that is of truth, because he himself is the Word of the Father and begotten Wisdom; for God is truth, says St. Jerome. The son of this Jonas is St. Peter (for he himself was Bar-Jona), whose truth and faith therefore never fail, as Christ prayed for him to the Father and obtained it, Luke cap. xxii, 32.
Moreover Jonas prophesied not in the earlier years of the reign of Jeroboam, in which he reigned with Amasias king of Juda, as a Castro thinks lib. IV Proem, cap. III; but in the later years, in which he himself reigned with Azarias son of Amasias. For under Jeroboam and Ozias, or Azarias, who reigned for fifty-two years, Osee began to prophesy, as is evident from Osee, cap. I, 1, who was the first of all the Prophets. Hence it follows that Jonas prophesied shortly before the beginning of the city of Rome, namely in the reign of Sardanapalus, whom the Gentile Historians place as the last king of the Assyrians. For Sardanapalus lived in the time of Jeroboam king of Israel, and Ozias king of Juda, at which time Procas Silvius grandfather of Romulus reigned in Latium, as witness Eusebius in the Chronicle, St. Augustine, lib. XVIII of the City of God cap. xxi, and St. Jerome, at the beginning of the Commentary on Amos, concerning which more cap. III, 5. From this chronology great light arises for the prophecy of Jonas. For from it we see the reason why God beyond the custom sent a Hebrew Prophet to the Ninevites, gentiles and very remote. Namely the reason was that at that time the customs of the Ninevites were most corrupt and most shameful, so that they cried out to heaven, and demanded vengeance and the thunderbolt, which God here threatens them with through Jonas. We learn that it was thus from their king Sardanapalus: for "according to the example of the king the whole world is ordered."
For Sardanapalus was most soft and most effeminate, whom Arbaces the Mede, placed in charge, says Justinus lib. I, found among a herd of harlots dyeing purple, and in womanly dress, with softness of body and lasciviousness of eyes surpassing all women, dividing tasks among maidens. When these things were seen, indignant at such a woman having so many men subject to her, he relates to his companions what he saw, denies that he can obey him, who prefers to be a woman rather than a man. Therefore a conspiracy is made: war is brought against Sardanapalus; when he heard this, not as a man about to defend his kingdom, but as women usually do from fear of death, first he looks about for hiding places, then soon with few and disorderly men he goes into battle, defeated he returns to the palace, and having built a pyre, he throws himself and his riches into the fire, in this alone imitating a man." Hence by the Greeks Sardanapalus was called, that is a fool: for his proper Assyrian name was Tonosconcoleros, as witness Eusebius in the Chronicle, and others. Hence also the name of Sardanapalus became a proverb, and signifies a most soft and most effeminate man. Thus Aristophanes in the Birds: "Who, says he, is this Sardanapalus?" Dying he composed this epitaph for himself:
Eat, drink, play; after death there is no pleasure.
And:
Since thou knowest thyself to be mortal, fill thy mind with present delights; after death there is no pleasure.
Or, as Cicero, III Tusculan Disputations: "How, says he, can life be pleasant, from which prudence is absent, moderation is absent? from which the error of Sardanapalus, the most wealthy king of Syria, is recognized, who ordered to be inscribed on his tomb:
These things I have which I have eaten, and which my sated lust has consumed, but those lie behind, many and noble things left.
"What else, says Aristotle, wouldst thou inscribe in the tomb of an ox, not of a king? He says that the dead man has these things, which even while living he did not have longer than he enjoyed them." Hence Juvenal, satire III:
And with lust, and feasts, and the cushions of Sardanapalus.
The wealthy citizens, imitating their king, devoted themselves equally to belly and lust, and from this fell into all crimes, so that they deserved to be struck down from heaven or swallowed up by the earth opening. Therefore God, most merciful, sends Jonas, who might reprove these crimes and threaten the impending destruction. Jonas, shrinking from this burden, flees to Tharsis: God follows him from behind, stirs up a storm at sea: the sailors cast lots, and they indicate Jonas as the cause of the waves. He is cast into the raging sea, swallowed by a whale; in the belly of the whale he invokes God, is heard, is freed, on the third day vomited forth by the whale onto the shore. Jonas comes to his senses, obedient to God goes to Nineveh, cries out with a loud voice: "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be destroyed." The Ninevites are struck, come to their senses, do penance in ashes and sackcloth. God, appeased, revokes his threats, spares the city. Jonas is indignant that his oracles are not fulfilled, but God through an ivy plant and a worm teaches him that it is clemency to spare the penitent.
Note: Afterwards the Ninevites returned to their nature and crimes; whence after Jonas, Nahum was sent to them, who again threatened them with destruction, which was indeed inflicted upon them, as I shall say on Nahum, chapter II. This is what Tobias, dying, chapter xiv, 13, commands his sons, that they flee from Nineveh: "For I see, he says, that its iniquity will bring an end to it." Where the Septuagint, as St. Jerome recites here in the Prologue, translates: Son, behold I am old, and I am near to departing from this life: take thy sons, and go into Media, my son. For I know what Jonas the prophet spoke concerning Nineveh, that it shall be destroyed. Whence it is clear that regarding the penance of the Ninevites, God's sentence concerning their destruction was not wholly abolished, but only suspended: for when they themselves returned to their crimes, God loosened his hand, revoked the sentence, and inflicted upon them the destruction threatened by Jonas.
Whence St. Augustine, book XVIII of the City of God, chapter xxx: "Jonas, he says, prophesied not so much by word as by a certain passion of his own, truly more openly than if he had cried out his death and resurrection with his voice."
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.