AtDTDA: 19 The two-Stupendica Problem, pt. 2 [521/522]

[robinlandseadel at comcast.net]

As the Bible is not one of my areas of expertise, I hope others chime in here. 
But the "Two-Stupendica Problem" does remind me of the Two Source 
Hypothesis for the bible's new testament:

           The 2SH derives its name from its postulation of two main 
           sources for the synoptic gospels: a narrative source for the 
           triple tradition and a sayings source for the double tradition. 
           The triple tradition comprises the subject matter jointly related 
           by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Generally, the triple tradition is 
           characterized by substantial agreements in arrangement and 
           wording among all three gospels with frequent agreements 
           between Mark and Matthew against Luke and between Mark 
           and Luke against Matthew, but a near absence of agreements 
           of Matthew and Luke against Mark. The double tradition 
           consists of the material that Matthew and Luke share outside 
           of Mark and exhibits some of the most striking verbatim 
           agreements in some passages and quite divergent versions in 
           other passages.

           While there are many variations of the 2SH, the most commonly 
           accepted form of the theory adopts the following propositions:

           The priority of Mark: The narrative source of the 2SH is Mark 
           1:1-16:8, which both Matthew and Luke used. Thus, Matthew 
           and Luke are each directly related to Mark in the triple tradition 
           and only indirected connected to each other in triple tradition 
           via Mark. Variations of this prong include the supposition of an 
           early form of Mark called Uk-Markus, or a revised form of Mark 
           called deutero-Mark, or both, but these possibilities are only 
           supported by a handful of active scholars.

           The existence of Q: The 2SH's sayings source is a discrete 
           document that Matthew and Luke independently used. This 
           document is called Q, from the German word for "source," 
           Quelle. Matthew and Luke are thus indirectly related to each 
           other in the double tradition. Differences of opinion about the 
           nature of Q are more common for this prong of the 2SH. While 
           most scholars see Q as a document, some view Q as a collection 
           of oral and written sources employed Matthew and Luke.

http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/2sh/index.htm

It looks like Jonah's got two books in the bible and that G-d speaks to 
Jonah twice, which I guess is one more than you usually get:       

           In the Old Testament of the Bible, Jonah is mentioned twice, 
           first in 2 Kings 14:25 (as a prophet in the time of King 
           Jeroboam II) and later in the Book of Jonah.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah

           Reason for flight

           Jonah was induced to flee because, after having won his 
           reputation as a true prophet ("one whose words always 
           came true") by the fulfilment of his prediction in the days 
           of Jeroboam II. (II Kings xiv.), he had come to be 
           distrusted and to be called a false prophet, the reason 
           being that when sent to Jerusalem to foretell its doom 
           its inhabitants repented and the disaster did not come.[8]

           Knowing that the Ninevites also were on the point of 
           repenting (?erobe teshubah), he anticipated that among 
           them, too, he would earn the reputation of being a false 
           God, or His Shekinah, could not be found (Pir?e R. El. x.; 
           but comp. Ibn Ezra's commentary).[9]

           The phrase in Jonah iii. 1, "and the word of God came 
           unto Jonah the second time," is interpreted by Rabbi 
           Akiba, however, to imply that God spoke only twice to 
           him; therefore the "word of God" to him in II Kings xiv. 
           25 has no reference to a prophecy which Jonah 
           delivered in the days of Jeroboam II., but must be taken 
           in the sense that as at Nineveh Jonah's words changed 
           evil to good, so under Jeroboam, Israel experienced a 
           change of fortune (Yeb. 98a).[10]

           When Jonah went to Joppa he found no ship, for the 
           vessel on which he had intended taking passage had 
           sailed two days before; but God caused a contrary 
           wind to arise and the ship was driven back to port 
           (Zohar, ?ayye Sarah).[11] At this Jonah rejoiced, 
           regarding it as indicating that his plan would succeed, 
           and in his joy he paid his passage-money in advance, 
           contrary to the usual custom, which did not require its 
           payment until the conclusion of the voyage.[12] According 
           to some he even paid the full value of the ship, amounting 
           to 4,000 gold denarii (Yalk., l.c.; Ned. 38a).[13] But all this 
           happened to teach him the fallacy of his conclusion that 
           God could be evaded (Yalk., l.c.; and Rashi, ad loc.), for 
           the contrary wind affected his ship only; all others on the 
           sea at that time proceeded uninterruptedly on their courses.[14]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonah_in_Rabbinic_Literature

But, hey, ya wanna chime in, feel free. 

For me, the notion of the Straits of Gibraltar acting as some metaphysical
duplicating lens echos with the scene of the entity that is brought
to the great city earlier on [149/155]. There is a sense that some power 
dwelling in the earth, some as yet unnamed deity deploys its magic,
refracting one ship into two. And yet, and at the same time, these beliefs 
of Jonah and the whale and G-d, they simply pass by the latent power of 
what those Gnaoua musicians were invoking there, out in the streets. 
There are many, seemingly non-compatible religious systems in Against 
the Day.