What happened to Jonah in the sea?

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@gbrooks9

Ocean critter experts say the only swimmer large enoughto swallow man is a great white shark.

This isn’t true. We know sperm whales can swallow giant squid, practically without even chewing.

@Eddie

There is no reason why Jesus could not apply Jonah with a new meaning, for the local purpose of understanding his own coming death and resurrection. I

But that is not a natural reading; “To describe how I’m going to be dead for three days and then raised to life, I’m going to use the example of someone who wasn’t dead at all, and who was never raised”.

@Eddie

In any case, analogies in popular religious discourse are loose things, not tight point-for-point correspondences. Jesus’s analogy works adequately if we think of Jonah as “as good as dead” once swallowed by the big fish, but then miraculously surviving the ordeal

But this is question begging.

@Eddie

Regarding the Flood, there is a difference between not reading the Biblical story of the Flood historically because one thinks that all the scientific and historical evidence is against the event, and not reading the story of the Flood historically because one sees the account as never intending to be history in the first place. My case is the latter one.

I find it very odd that you treat Jonah one way and treat the Genesis flood account a completely different way. Chapter after chapter describing the Genesis flood in considerable detail, in a narrative genre, and you claim it was never intended to be history in the first place. What is the evidence for this claim? Where is the evidence that the original audience would have understood it was never intended to be history in the first place? I read it as narrative which is intended to be history, and that is substantiated by the physical evidence corroborating that history.

@Eddie

When I see that it says that Jonah was in the belly of the fish for three days, it isn’t natural for me to read that as “and Jonah’s dead body lay in the belly of the fish for three days” or “Jonah survived for a few agonizing hours in the belly of the fish, then died, and his body lay there for the rest of three days.”

Even though Jonah says he died. But for some reason you think it’s natural to read the mult-chapter Genesis flood account as if it was never intended to describe historical events.

@Eddie

I can honestly say – and I stress that this does not make your reading wrong – that this is the first time I’ve heard your reading in about 40 years of studying the Bible and reading what scholars and theologians have to say.

This does not surprise me, since on more than one occasion previously you have demonstrated no knowledge of facts, or arguments, or interpretations, which are widely known to many other people. This is most surprising given your extraordinarily varied career; according to your claims you have been a theologian with decades of teaching experience, a gifted scientist who was on track to be the next Richard Dawkins, and a philosopher with a host of scholarly publications. I am sure we’ll eventually hear how you were also a fireman, a doctor, and an astronaut.

In this case the interpretation that Jonah died and was raised dates to at least the nineteenth century scholar Bullinger. You can find a host of references to this interpretation in popular and more scholarly works, from Bullinger “Companion Bible” (1909-1922), and Lockyer “All the Miracles of the Bible” (1961), to Campbell “The Power of Myth” (1981), and Dake Annotated Reference Bible (1996). Here are some quotations.

It has been proposed that Jonah actually died during the three days of his imprisonment, in order to be a true type of Christ.

Gerald B. Stanton, “The Prophet Jonah and His Message,” Bibliotheca Sacra 108 (1951): 364.

That Jonah died will become obvious if this verse is broken down carefully.

Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, The Messianic Bible Study Collection (vol. 79; Tustin, CA: Ariel Ministries, 1983), 12.

There is also the possibility that Jonah died in the belly of the fish, and that God brought him back to life after three days. This would not be inconsistent with the teaching of Scripture, seeing that at least eight other resuscitations are recorded. However, this is not indicative in the narrative and Jonah could have survived.

Josh McDowell and Don Douglas Stewart, Answers to Tough Questions (Nashville: T. Nelson Publishers, 1993).

Concerning the first question, whether Jonah actually died, scholars are predictably divided into two camps: those that say that he did die and those who say that he did not.

Edward E. Hindson and Woodrow Michael Kroll, eds., KJV Bible Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994), 1727.

The mention of the belly of Sheol in verse 2 has led some to believe that Jonah actually died in the fish and was resurrected.

William MacDonald, Believer’s Bible Commentary: Old and New Testaments (ed. Arthur Farstad; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1995), 1128.

Some have thought that Jonah actually died and experienced a resurrection here, but the text is not clear about that.

Marni Shideler McKenzie, Prophets of Israel (vol. 1; Dickson, TN: Explorer’s Bible Study, 2004), 7.

Some Bible scholars believe that Jonah remained alive in the fish while others believe that he died. The author of this commentary takes the latter view.

Roy E. Gingrich, The Books of Amos, Obadiah and Jonah (Memphis, TN: Riverside Printing, 2004), 37.

Some use the logic that Jonah died inside the sea monster and God raised him back to life.

James E. Rosscup, An Exposition on Prayer in the Bible: Igniting the Fuel to Flame Our Communication with God (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2008), 1355.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

Some find it easy to interpret the fish as a representation of SHEOL … without actually needing to have the FISH be real!

So… to the degree that a person ACCEPTS this interpretation, it provides a good model for how we can take an equally miraculous story (Adam & Eve) and give it an interpretation that doesn’t require a specific “first man” and “first woman”!

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@Eddie,

The point of my very brief post is to use

“Jonah in a Fish/Sheol” as a template for re-interpreting the Adam/Eve story more figuratively.

[dscottjorgenson (Scott Jorgenson)]

Eddie, re: this:

“So what are the textual grounds for denying the miraculous elements in Jonah, and calling the whole story a parable … Are there crucial literary differences which justify treating the two accounts differently? I haven’t seen those literary differences shown.”

Perhaps you missed the URL I gave above, to my earlier comments on this subject in another thread here in the Biologos forums. See them at "Narrative Theology" approach to Scripture - #52 by dscottjorgenson …

Also see C.S. Lewis’ letter to Corbin Carnell, in Collected Letters Volume III The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy ... - C. S. Lewis - Google Books …

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

We were talking about the exegesis of the Jonah story, not the exegesis of the Gospel passage.

Actually we were talking about Christ’s use of the passage; you said specifically “There is no reason why Jesus could not apply Jonah with a new meaning, for the local purpose of understanding his own coming death and resurrection”.

@Eddie

Suppose you were a Jew living at the time Jonah was first published. So you’ve never heard of Jesus of Nazareth. You’ve never heard of a “New Testament” or “Christian theology.” Would the most natural reading of the Jonah story be that Jonah died in the belly of the whale and was resurrected at the time he came out? Is that how you would read the story if you’d never heard of Jesus or Christianity?

Quite possibly, since my reading of the text is not based on Jesus’ interpretation but on what the text in Jonah actually says. You have basically acknowledged that the only way to get around what the text in Jonah actually says is to call it poetic and say that this means it doesn’t need to be taken literally.

@Eddie

But if he died in the whale, who is speaking?

Since he is speaking in the past tense, not the present tense, he is speaking after the event, not during the event. It even says that the prayer was made at the end of the three days and three nights. It’s right there in the text. So he’s not speaking while dead, he’s speaking when he is alive again, and reflecting (in the past tense), about what happened in the past (using the past tense). If Jonah 1:17 “Jonah was in the stomach for the fish three days and three nights” isn’t enough of a hint, then the repeated use of past tense in Jonah’s prayer, followed immediately by “Then the Lord commanded the fish and it disgorged Jonah on dry land” is a bit of a giveaway.

@Eddie

But if you find it odd that someone would interpret one Biblical passage as historical and another as non-historical,

As a general rule I don’t. There are perfectly good reasons for interpreting different Bible passages differently. You are not addressing what I wrote.

@Eddie

Denis Lamoureux has an essay called “Evolutionary Creation” on his website, in which he gives examples from Genesis 1 and the Flood story to defend a non-historical reading.

Actually when it comes to the flood his only argument is “The account uses chiasmus, chiasmus is used in poetry, therefore we can treat this as non-historical”. This is an extremely poor argument, which fails to take into account the fact that chiasmus is used in the Bible in historical accounts and narrative (chiasmus is not necessarily an indicator of non-historicity), and the fact that historical events are sometimes described in the Bible using poetry or song. So his point fails both coming and going. Would we really argue that since Deborah sang the Song of the Sea, this proves the crossing of the Red Sea was not a historical event? Would we really argue that since the women sang “Saul has slain his thousands, but David his ten thousands”, David never killed anyone? Would we really argue that since David wrote the Song of the Bow, Jonathan never existed, or at least did not die in battle? This is a complete non-sequitur.

Additionally, neither Dennis or you spend any time on the fact that the Genesis flood account matches both the historical, hydrological, and archaeological evidence, including the other ANE accounts of the Mesopotamian mega flood of around 2900 BCE.

@Eddie

As far as I can tell, the reason given for not accepting Jonah’s historicity is that no human being could be swallowed by a whale or would survive if he were so swallowed, so the story must not be historically true and must be some sort of parable.

This is straight out the Ken Ham playbook. But since I don’t deny Jonah’s historicity, and since I argue he was swallowed by a fish, this doesn’t apply to me. My view that he died has nothing to do with the Enlightenment, and everything to do with the actual text. Christ’s use of the passage is just icing. I find these words of yours particularly ironic given that you deny the historicity of entire slabs of Genesis 1-11, including the flood.

@Eddie

Are there crucial literary differences which justify treating the two accounts differently? I haven’t seen those literary differences shown.

Please show all the crucial literal differences between the Jonah narrative and the flood narrative which justify writing off the historicity of the flood narrative.

@Eddie

Finally, I don’t see why you are so much more concerned to preserve a miraculous death and resurrection of Jonah (which you can get only by supplementing the Biblical text) than to preserve the Gospel accounts regarding demons and their expulsion (which are explicit and need no such supplementation). It seems that your reading of Scripture is at least as selective as (according to you) mine is.

I do preserve the gospel accounts regarding demons and their expulsion. I just interpret them differently to you because I have a greater depth of knowledge of the relevant Second Temple Period background. I have actually taken the time to do the necessary lexical and socio-historical heavy lifting which you haven’t done.

[quote=“Eddie, post:39, topic:5112”]
It’s interesting that you can’t find the idea that Jonah died and was resurrected in Christian literature earlier than Bullinger (19th century). And the notion seems to have become widespread only in quite recent years. How do you account for that?[/quote]

How do you know? I haven’t even looked any earlier than the nineteenth century. I don’t see that it’s relevant. Christians have been spectacularly wrong about various passages of the Bible over over 1,000 years on previous occasions, so that’s nothing new. The Catholic Church provides some absolutely hilarious examples.

@Eddie

Were Christians incompetent readers of Jonah for 1800 years? Have they only recently figured out how to read it?

You deny the historicity of the flood, and you ask me this? How do you account for the novelty of your interpretation? Were Christians incompetent readers of the flood narrative for 1900 years? Have they only recently figured out how to read it now you’ve come along and explained it all?

@Eddie

Why is “what one finds easy” to accept a reliable guide in Biblical interpretation? Surely “the intention of the author” takes precedence over “what one finds easy” to accept?

It’s good to see you agree with me on this point (finally).

[BradKramer]

Hey look! It’s a good conversation that got horribly off-topic while several people with too much spare time yell at each other! Imagine that!

Consider this a heavily sarcastic warning. You know who you are.

[beaglelady]

The stomach is both muscular and glandular. Jonah would have been ground up and saturated with hydrochloric acid and digestive enzymes in a churning mixture that probably would have also contained dead fish. Then muscular contractions would have passed him into the duodenum. Would he really have been able to compose a beautiful and reflective prayer in that situation? His prayer doesn’t even mention being swallowed by any kind of sea creature!!!

But if anyone would like to see what it’s like inside a sperm whale, I have just the video for you. Inside Nature’s Giants: Sperm Whale

[BernieDehler]

If the reader believes in magic, miracles, then you don’t have to worry about it being “more believable.”

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

If you feel the story of Jonah is historical, then I see no option but to accept that he was either miraculously preserved in the fish belly, or that “swallowed by a fish” is a part of the story that perhaps is metaphorical or (horrors!) perhaps having lost something in translation and repetition in that the sea is seen as “chaos” and the realm of monsters in Genesis and Job particularly, and we speak today such phrases as being “in the belly of the beast” or being “swallowed by the sea.” I really see no biblical indication of resurrection except indirectly as the story is metaphorically applied to Jesus, and there, whether historical or metaphorical in the original telling, it is metaphor with the limitations thereof.

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

This thread is not off topic. The meaning of the text is being discussed in detail.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@jpm

If you feel the story of Jonah is historical, then I see no option but to accept that he was either miraculously preserved in the fish belly, or that “swallowed by a fish” is a part of the story that perhaps is metaphorical or (horrors!) perhaps having lost something in translation and repetition in that the sea is seen as “chaos” and the realm of monsters in Genesis and Job particularly, and we speak today such phrases as being “in the belly of the beast” or being “swallowed by the sea.” I really see no biblical indication of resurrection except indirectly as the story is metaphorically applied to Jesus, and there, whether historical or metaphorical in the original telling, it is metaphor with the limitations thereof.

@jpm

Brilliant! I’ve started a new thread on this point EXACTLY!!!

The Mysterious Symbolism of Jonah and the Fish

So, @Christy … you are going to be a stickler that you can’t pray in Sheol… but you CAN pray in a fish? The “Sheol” reference is a challenge for either interpretation - - with one exception… Tiamat: “Tiamat was later known as Thalattē (as a variant of thalassa, the Greek word for “sea”) in the Hellenistic Babylonian writer Berossus’ first volume of universal history.” or … perhaps Abzu: “The Abzu (Cuneiform: 𒍪 𒀊, ZU.AB; Sumerian: abzu; Akkadian: apsû) also called engur, literally, ab=‘oce…

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@Eddie

It is not impossible, in Biblical stories, for a character to speak in the past tense about something which is still currently affecting him. Hebrew does not have the range of tenses that other languages have, and the past tense (usually called the perfect in Hebrew grammars) is used quite flexibly, especially in poetic contexts. It is not at all inconceivable that a person trapped in the belly of the whale, though living, might see himself as effectively dead (unless God should relent) and express his situation in the past tense, in a poetic mode.

This is an ad hoc argument. The only reason you are raising this is to defend the interpretation you have already decided on. This is eisegesis. You have provided no grounds on which to parse the grammar here as anything but past tense. It is no surprise that modern English Bible translations and translator guides understand the grammar here as past tense. You are welcome to contest their reasoning with evidence.

@Eddie

In any case, there is no indication in the Jonah story that Jonah uttered those words only after emerging from the belly of the whale. The natural way of reading the story is the opposite.

I agree.

@Eddie

Only a forced reading would try to make out that Jonah’s prayer was uttered after he emerged from the fish.

Yes.

@Eddie

I agree that Lamoureux’s argument is sketchy, but there are many other reasons for regarding the Noah story as heavily artificial in its construction.

But “artificial in its construction” is not necessarily an argument for “non-historical”. Most of the historical narratives in the Old Testament (and New Testament), are artificial in their construction (the histories of the monarchy, and the gospels, being particular cases in point).

@Eddie

Indeed, 25-30 years before Lamoureux’s essay my Hebrew Bible professors were teaching me about literary structures in Genesis 1-11 and how they affected interpretation. Lamoureux’s argument is just the tip of the iceberg.

But where are all the arguments that these literary structures indicate the original writer and audience understood that these chapters were not speaking of historical events? I note you have not addressed the fact that the Genesis flood account matches both the historical, hydrological, and archaeological evidence, including the other ANE accounts of the Mesopotamian mega flood of around 2900 BCE.

@Eddie

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t endorse Ham’s views.

I am talking about the fact that you used an argument straight out of Ken Ham’s playbook. This is not a surprise given what you have in common with him.

@Eddie

I suspect she thinks that no such event happened, that the story is didactic fiction. If she says so, will you oppose her on that point?

Of course. I have already opposed this view in this thread.

[quote=“Eddie, post:45, topic:5112”]
“Second Temple Period background” is not the issue. The issue is what senses the Greek text can bear.[/quote]

Second Temple Period background is the issue, because it’s the background which informs us what senses the Greek can bear. This is how lexicons are written.

@Eddie

I’ve taught Biblical Greek.

But when I asked you some basic questions about the lexical range of Greek words like satanas and daimonia during the Second Temple Period, you couldn’t answer them.

@Eddie

If you can show me how to construe the Greek so that all the details of the demon possession stories can be completely explained in terms of modern psychology, without denying a single detail of the factual reports of the Gospels, I’m glad to listen. But that should be done under a separate column on demon possession, not here.

Yes indeed. You could start with the reading list I provided you with previously.

@Eddie

It’s my job as a scholar to report what I think the Bible teaches, whether I like that teaching or not

Then on what basis do you claim that the original writer and audience understood that the Genesis flood narrative is not speaking of historical events?

[dscottjorgenson (Scott Jorgenson)]

Hi Eddie - if you follow the link I gave The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3: Narnia, Cambridge, and Joy ... - C. S. Lewis - Google Books it should have directed you to page 318 in Google’s online text of the “Collected Letters, Volume 3” book, where his letter to Corbin Carnell begins. Not sure why it isn’t working for you, but in any case here’s an excerpt:

 You see, the question about Jonah and the great fish 

does not turn simply on intrinsic probability. The point is that the whole
Book of Jonah has to me the air of being a moral romance, a quite different
kind of thing from, say, the account of King David or the New Testament
narratives, not pegged, like them, into any historical situation.

Here’s another link I just found, on another site, to the text of the letter: C. S. Lewis on Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Historicity of Scripture

---

As for distinguishing fictional narrative from historical narrative - this is an art, not a science, of course. Judgments will sometimes vary. But to my mind, when one finds a narrative that is full of hyperbole, farce, and other anti-realistic improbabilities, fiction is a pretty good bet.

As for miracles in particular: when I find a narrative that reports one miracle after another at face value and moves on without remark, as if such things are almost blase - such as being swallowed by a fish and surviving 3 days, or being sheltered by a plant that grows to full maturity in a matter of hours - both of which are reported in Jonah with blase factitude - then I am skeptical about their historicity. Contrast this with the gospel accounts of the resurrection - a far smaller miracle than many reported throughout the bible, but one with the ring of verisimilitude on account of how much it is reflected and commented upon. After all, if something miraculous were to actually happen in history, it would surely be marveled at by those who witnessed it, over and over, and they would ponder its significance - not just record it and move on, as if it was an everyday happenstance. But in fiction, especially fantasy writing and so forth, we may expect such blase reportage, when to do otherwise would get in the way of the author’s purpose (eg, propelling the narrative forward in its theme). So, that’s one key difference I see between the NT accounts of the resurrection and so many of the Bible’s other miraculous accounts, especially in OT books like Jonah.

[beaglelady]

Excellent post!

[Walt_Huber]

First, lets remember in the Bible there is no “whale” in the Jonah story, it is a “big fish” or “great fish” depending on the version you are reading. It is entirely possible is wasn’t a “sea creature” at all. The Bible story is just reporting what Jonah thinks happened to him to the best he can remember. Could it be that “angels” were involved and Jonah spent time in “something” for three days? He started in the water and ended up on the beach. He assumed he was in a fish. Could he have been in a vessel of some kind for that time. Was he even conscious for the period? There are no details about what happened to him inside the “fish.”

Since this BioLogos site is all about blending Spirituality and Science, technical answers are usually welcome and considered. For a speculation about this Jonah story (chapter 26) and many others in the Bible, see our book How Did God Do It? A Symphony of Science and Scripture. The solution may not have needed God with a magic wand, would not have needed to violate any laws of physics and not conflict with the basic tenets of Judaism and Christianity.

P,S. @BradKramer We send you a copy of the book. Have you had a chance to review it and have you included it in your reference library?

[beaglelady]

Now I’m dying to get my hands (flippers?) on the commentary on Jonah by Robert Alter. I think I’ll have my library get it.