Comic

Could someone tell me what is supposed to be comic about the ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ? Confused

Ascension
The comic cycle of descent and ascent is to epic narrative what proodos and epistrophē are to classical cosmology and psychology. Scripture knows little or nothing of the latter, naturally, though later allegorical and anagogical exegesis (such as informs Augustine’s Confessions, e.g., or Dante’s Comedia) does. Of the former, however, Scripture already knows a great deal. Its narrative structure is characterized by cycles of descent and ascent, and is ultimately comic. It is the ascension of Jesus that makes it so, and as a resolution of these cycles the basic significance of Jesus’ ascension can in turn be grasped.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (London; Grand Rapids, MI.: SPCK; Baker Academic, 2005), 65.

Is this just typo or do I have to change my sermon for Ascension Day?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Kevin Becker

It's not a typo, I checked the print edition. I would interpret these uses in a classical theatrical sense as "not tragic." In Greek theater the main character died at the end of a tragedy and everything else was considered a comedy. The fact that Jesus arose, being transformed from a tragic figure to a victorious one, is technically a comic move albeit not a funny one.

Todd Phillips

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/127962#Comment_127962

"Because there are various types of conflicts in a story there are several kinds of plots in literature. For example, a story can be tragic, comic, or satirical. Aristotle contended that whether a plot is tragic or comic depends on how an author decides to imitate life. Tragedy takes a character who is superior to other human beings and changes the protagonist’s fortunes from good to bad, doing so to inspire terror and pity in the reader. Comedy, on the other hand, presents a main figure who is often flawed in some way but who still triumphs. At times the comedic hero has talents equal to those of other characters but is harassed by enemies or circumstances. Nevertheless the hero emerges victorious. Since the conclusion in comedy is pleasant to the audience, there is little or no regret at story’s end."

Paul House in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 36, 3

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/127983#Comment_127983

I know it's easy to find offense with some phrases in works we read and this one relates to understanding the authors context (as all does). I would have been troubled by this "comic" attachment also... at least at first, till the context was understood.

Here is one that bothered me by I. Howard Marshall on page 539 of his commentary on Acts 2:24-30 in the book "Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament".

Referencing verses 29 he says, ", so the argument about David's descendants is in fact concerned with the continuation of his line beyond his immediate descendants, and therefore Peter's interpretation in a wide sense in 2:30 is sufficiently plausible."

"...is sufficiently plausible." OUCH! Really! Does he count God's word a lie? Does' or did God ever make an empty promise? Does he not know that, in fact, God did make this promise? Did he ignore verse 31?

Acts 2:30
30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption.

I know we all have suppositions when we read the word, but isn't the core of scriptural study the fact that these men spoke by inspiration from God and that God cannot (and would not) lie. This doesn't make Peter's statement "sufficiently plausible", it make it a statement of "Faith" knowing a fuller revelation of Christ fulfillment of that promise to both David and those who would believe through the apostolic witness (Jn. 20:29; Matt. 24:14; 2 Pt. 1:16).

Anyway, I'm over it. We all can be easily misunderstood.

Love all ... because He first loved me. [:$] [:P]

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/127962#Comment_127962

Thank you for explaining this passage, Kevin and Todd! I wasn't sure if it was a typo or just a lack of understanding on my part. I guess I am more familiar with Greek tragedy than with comedy. In secondary school our Latin teacher wanted us to translate part of a comedy by Terence, but to us it felt more like Greek tragedy....[:)]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128014#Comment_128014

Here is one that bothered me by I. Howard Marshall

I would have taken the comment to refer to the interpretation of the OT; however, your post makes several theological assumptions that Marshall may or may not agree with - and Logos users may or may not agree with either you or Marshall. This is why we avoid theology on the forums. [:D] In this case, I'm personally glad you posted because of the insight it gave me into your line of reasoning - one reason I regret that theological discussions had to be banned because of the rancor of some posters.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128048#Comment_128048

I am more familiar with Greek tragedy than with comedy

Is that why Humberto Eco wrote The Name of the Rose?[:D]

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128105#Comment_128105

Here is one that bothered me by I. Howard Marshall

I would have taken the comment to refer to the interpretation of the OT; however, your post makes several theological assumptions that Marshall may or may not agree with - and Logos users may or may not agree with either you or Marshall. This is why we avoid theology on the forums. In this case, I'm personally glad you posted because of the insight it gave me into your line of reasoning - one reason I regret that theological discussions had to be banned because of the rancor of some posters.

I'm sure you're right that there would be differences among our forum "ecclesia". I wish not to offend. I would gladly put them aside for my Lord, Love and Unity.

I didn't intent to go into theology... though I certainly presented some assumptions. My point, that I failed to convey (as usual), is that the vocabulary chosen by the author, (in my personal example), bothered/offended me and without a conscience effort/act I had isolated the authors vocabulary from the authors context/intent (interpretation of OT scripture). I was trying to make a comparative of my experience and with that of the original post... of course I was assuming somewhat the intent and context of the original post. [:S] [:D]

In any event we can all be misunderstood... oh, and I'm not sure my reasoning is rational. LOL

HJ. van der Wal

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128108#Comment_128108

Is that why Humberto Eco wrote The Name of the Rose?

[:D][:D][:D]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128118#Comment_128118

My point, that I failed to convey (as usual), is that the vocabulary chosen by the author, (in my personal example), bothered/offended me and without a conscience effort/act I had isolated the authors vocabulary from the authors context/intent (interpretation of OT scripture). I was trying to make a comparative of my experience and with that of the original post... of course I was assuming somewhat the intent and context of the original post.

In any event we can all be misunderstood... oh, and I'm not sure my reasoning is rational.

Actually you can pat yourself on the back (assuming that you are sufficiently flexible, have limbs that can reach your back, that you have a back, that you have a corporeal body, and a myriad of additional assumptions - theological and not). Your explanation is very clear ... and we've given several extra illustrations. [:D][H]

JimTowler

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128014#Comment_128014

... some phrases in works we read ... relates to understanding the authors context (as all does) ...

Anthony,

I hope I am not taking your words too far from the context you used them in, and the way you intended them to mean.

I agree that the authors context is important; maybe even critical, to understand what was said.

I will sometimes find and read something in a work within Logos4, and wonder how/why they could or would think that way. But on reading the preface of the work, and understanding the target and intent, things often seem very different.

I value all the comments from everyone above. I hope I am learning something. Thanks.

EDIT: I removed a misleading and incorrect P.S.

Anthony H

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/128361#Comment_128361

M.J. and Jim,

Well said to both of you. I believe we have unity.

[:)]