Is Jonah and the Whale a fictitious story?

[Crimson_Seraph]

Jesus was a real person - does that mean the Da Vinci Code is historically accurate ?​

I’ve never understood why people have no problem believing in God, but when it comes to Jonah being swallowed by a whale, well that’s just silly right?

I’ll tell ya a little story to show you my point.

There was a little girl at school. She was in a biology class while the teacher was talking about whales, and about how a whale couldn’t really swallow a person because it’s throat is reletively small. The little girl said “Jonah was swallowed by a whale.” matter-of-factly. A little irritated, the teacher repeated that a whale could not swallow a person. Not to be deterred, the little girl said that when she got to heaven she would ask Jonah. The teacher rolled her eyes and said, What if Jonah isn’t in heaven? The little girl smiled and said, Then you can ask him.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It still uses the word Parable in the Douay-Rheims.

And in other ETs, though I have no idea which ​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I’ve never understood why people have no problem believing in God, but when it comes to Jonah being swallowed by a whale, well that’s just silly right?

I’ll tell ya a little story to show you my point.

There was a little girl at school. She was in a biology class while the teacher was talking about whales, and about how a whale couldn’t really swallow a person because it’s throat is reletively small. The little girl said “Jonah was swallowed by a whale.” matter-of-factly. A little irritated, the teacher repeated that a whale could not swallow a person. Not to be deterred, the little girl said that when she got to heaven she would ask Jonah. The teacher rolled her eyes and said, What if Jonah isn’t in heaven? The little girl smiled and said, Then you can ask him.

That is comparing unlike things.​

And a story about someone does not make him a fiction if he is real. And a accepting a fiction as true does not make someone real. This is not rocket science :banghead: If people can’t read, that is their loss; it’s no excuse for spouting nonsense. The alleged sojourn of of the prophet in the belly of the “great fish” (during which he was able to indite a psalm; not very plausible, surely ?) is not the only reason for believing the book is decidedly “fishy” as fact.

As for that story, people in the US seem to be very fond of that kind of thing - I sincerely hope that child (if real & if as impertinent) got a good slapping. “Pious” infants who refute their tiresome elders deserve no better. Life would be very nice (for some) if some people were not better equipped than others to comment on certain matters than other people - but that is how it is.

 

[cheeto1]

I believe in Jonah as real, whale and all, because I think Jesus does.

But, sometimes I wonder if the “great fish” could be something
else. Something unimaginable to the people of that day.
Like maybe a submarine. And just what is a “chariot of fire”
that Elijah was taken up to heaven in? What if it was something
else, not a chariot, but chariot was all they could say to describe it at that time.

 

[mystagogia]

I have a Catholic children’s bible. At the end of each story, there is a commentary. My son was reading the story of Jonah and the Whale. The commentary stated that according to St. Gregory Nazianzen, the story of Jonah and the whale was a parable to encourage the Israelites to become missionaries. Has anyone heard of this before? Is it just a parable?

Yes, I have heard this kind of thing before. Jonah belongs to a class of Jewish literature known as “midrash” according to many. “Parable” is however a poor translation of “midrash”. The midrash was a homelitic type of literature - it was not written as an absolute factual history. Was it then an absolute literary invention? Well, no. The expectation for midrash was to convey truth, but with license.

The Catholic Church takes no official position on the historicity of Jonah other than to say Jonah is inspired literature which contains truth. Jesus did foreshadow his three day descent into Hell with a comparison with Jonah in the belly of the whale. Given the authority of Jesus, does that suggest Jonah was historical?

Maybe, maybe not in my opinion. I don’t think it matters much either way, which reflects the Church’s ambivelence on the topic I like to think. Either way, Jesus aligns himself here with the miraculous and conveys his meaning in way faithful to Old Testament Scripture.

Jonah is also one of the most “lively” of Old Testament texts – it’s a timeless read. The Word Alive points to the lively word? How could that be? haha.

Great stuff.

 

[Crimson_Seraph]

That is comparing unlike things.​

And a story about someone does not make him a fiction if he is real. And a accepting a fiction as true does not make someone real. This is not rocket science :banghead: If people can’t read, that is their loss; it’s no excuse for spouting nonsense. The alleged sojourn of of the prophet in the belly of the “great fish” (during which he was able to indite a psalm; not very plausible, surely ?) is not the only reason for believing the book is decidedly “fishy” as fact.

As for that story, people in the US seem to be very fond of that kind of thing - I sincerely hope that child (if real & if as impertinent) got a good slapping. “Pious” infants who refute their tiresome elders deserve no better. Life would be very nice (for some) if some people were not better equipped than others to comment on certain matters than other people - but that is how it is.

I think that sounds more believable that Samson slaying 9,000 soldiers with the jawbone of an donkey, or the Red Sea parting, or a virgin bearing a son…etc.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Patg and I had a discussion about Jonah on this thread.

Enjoy!

 

[Afterthought]

Jonas spent three days in a whale stomach, right?

When whales swallow food, it travels through the esophagus to a multichambered stomach that resembles the stomachs of ruminant hoofed animals such as cattle, sheep, and deer. In the first stomach chamber, a saclike extension of the esophagus, food is crushed. In the second chamber, digestive juices further break down food. Most cetaceans have a third stomach chamber, which regularly contracts to mash and thoroughly mix food with digestive juices. The stomach capacity of a large whale can reach 760 liters (200 gallons).

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565254_2/whale.html

I bet he would be dead by day two at the latest if he was REALLY in a whale stomach.

I think that sounds more believable that Samson slaying 9,000 soldiers with the jawbone of an donkey, or the Red Sea parting, or a virgin bearing a son…etc.

Pretend each tree is a person, and I’m guessing about 5,000 trees up to the big yellow patch in the center: media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/41/59041-004-7F34BA3A.jpg

Now get Brian and his hatchet and have him cut down every tree.

The Red Sea didn’t part. The Reed Sea did; there is something that has to do with tides that make the water rise or fall very quickly. Moses, spending 40 years in the area and being a fantastic military leader, would have known this to occur and their crossing to the tides.

 

[patrick457]

Jonas spent three days in a whale stomach, right?

encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761565254_2/whale.html

I bet he would be dead by day two at the latest if he was REALLY in a whale stomach.

Actually, the original Hebrew refers only to a Ha-dag gadol, “the great fish”. The Greek meanwhile renders dag gadol as kētei megalō, meaning “a large great fish” or “a large whale” or even “a large sea monster/sea serpent.” Since in Greek mythology the word kētos is closely associated with sea monsters (e.g., Cetus of Greek mythology), early Christians depicted the ‘fish’ as being a hideous serpentine creature. Jerome later translated this phrase as piscis granda (great fish) in his Latin Vulgate. He translated kētos, however, as cetus in Matthew 12:40. At some point, however, cetus became synonymous with “whale” (for instance, the study of whales is now called cetology), which is the source of the popular idea that it was a whale that swallowed Jonah.

So the ‘great fish’ could have been something else; heck, the dag gadol of Jonah might have been a one-time special creation or even a species yet unidentified.

The Red Sea didn’t part. The Reed Sea did; there is something that has to do with tides that make the water rise or fall very quickly. Moses, spending 40 years in the area and being a fantastic military leader, would have known this to occur and their crossing to the tides.

Ah, the Yam Suph. Rashi in the 11th century already noted that the word Yam Suph may mean “Reed Sea”, so it’s nothing new – even so, it has also been suggested that suph may be related to the Hebrew suphah (“storm”) or soph (“end”), referring to the events surrounding the escape itself.

Personally though, it wouldn’t really make a difference (at least for me) whether the Israelites crossed the “Red Sea” (Erythra Thalassa) proper or a more shallow body of water located near it. However, 1 Kings 9:26 seems to indicate that the Red Sea port of Aqaba is located on Yam Suph:

And King Solomon also built a fleet of ships at Ezion-geber, which is near Elat on the shore of Yam Suph, in the land of Edom.

The Hebrews therefore seem to have understood the “Red Sea” to have been contiguous from the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba.

 

[Shin]

Actually I recall reading a case in more recent times of a man devoured by a whale, for days, who when the whale was killed and cut open, walked right out. Wish I had the article in front of me but I’m certain anyone -who wished to- could find it. Those who seek… find.

As for what St. Gregory and others truly think of the historical nature of the matter, there’s an article here: catholicintl.com/catholicissues/jonah.htm that address the subject.

So in fact, after reading the article, one can assuredly see it is to be relied upon as historical because that is how the authorities rely on it.

There is no reason not to believe it in this sense save if one has a predisposition to disbelieve in the miraculous when the Holy Scriptures relate it. Such a predisposition is obviously a lack of faith in God.

 

[texrec]

Sometimes it’s difficult for me to know what parts of the bible are to be interpreted literally and what parts are stories for teaching lessons.

That’s one of the reasons our Lord established the church, isn’t it?

 

[Annc]

I suggest reading the following:

And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms
by Margaret Nutting Ralph

Dei Verbum-Dogmatic vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.htmlConstitution on Divine Revelation.

I don’t know if it is fact or fiction just that the religious truth of the story is the most important thing.

The other thing I know is that I can never hear mention of Jonah without getting a mental picture of Bob the Asparagus. It is pretty hard to get serious about it after that. Sorry.

 

[Shlomey]

That’s one of the reasons our Lord established the church, isn’t it?

That’d be a good statement if the Church actually explained all parts of the Bible and told us how to understand certain things.
Apparently she is rather cautious.

 

[keelmeister]

With reference to parables; parables generally do not mention real places or people by name. Usually goes something like, “a man in a distance land”. Whereas in the case of Jona, specific names, peoples, and places are mentioned. With reference to the possibility of being sallowed by a whale; according to the records of the British Admirilty, an apprentice seaman by the name of James Bartley was serving aboard a whaler in February of 1891. During an encounter with a sperm whale, Mr Bartley was thrown into the water and swallowed by the whale. He was inadvertently rescued by his mates some 15 hours later. He lost all of his hair, his skin was bleached white, and he was blind for the rest of his life.

 

[Pete_Holter]

That is comparing unlike things. As for that story, people in the US seem to be very fond of that kind of thing - I sincerely hope that child (if real & if as impertinent) got a good slapping. “Pious” infants who refute their tiresome elders deserve no better. Life would be very nice (for some) if some people were not better equipped than others to comment on certain matters than other people - but that is how it is.​

It was actually a joke from Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

 

[Patrick_Bestall]

What a confused collection of answers I read on this website. What does Tradition say? It was history to them. What did Jesus say? It was history to him. What do scientists say about fantastic stories in the bible? They are divided (see Creation Research Society, it’s 1700 members include archaeologists, physicists, astronomers, etc.) What do popular media say? It’s all hokem. Read Keane’s book, Creation Rediscovered, for a Catholic perspective that believes God can do anything. If you want more from me, email pbestall@rogers.com

 

[mirandajb]

Jonah and the whale was a true story. Usually stories that parables are stated as parables in the Bible

Amen to that. It certainly is not a parable. The most accurate English translation of the original text states “large fish” - and not whale. I was speaking to a Protestant pastor who was dabbling in Gnostics. He spoke with authority and told me that it is proven that there are no whales in that part of the world - Joppa / Tarshish so therefore that whole book is only a story. I was truly distressed because all of us grew up thinking that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the ‘whale’ - all the stories that are printed also describe it as a whale and not ‘large fish’. The Word of God does not lie and I was bent on getting to the bottom of the issue (no pun intended). I decided to research this fact and found that the proper translation is indeed ‘large / great fish’ and not whale - phew! Let us start changing this (large fish AND NOT whale) wherever we can so we don’t get ridiculed by people “who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matt 23.24)”

 

[littletherese3]

Haha I love this story. In yr 1 I played Jonah in a play in front of the school…it’s close to my heart

I’m quite willing to believe that it is true.

 

[patrick457]

Amen to that. It certainly is not a parable. The most accurate English translation of the original text states “large fish” - and not whale. I was speaking to a Protestant pastor who was dabbling in Gnostics. He spoke with authority and told me that it is proven that there are no whales in that part of the world - Joppa / Tarshish so therefore that whole book is only a story. I was truly distressed because all of us grew up thinking that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the ‘whale’ - all the stories that are printed also describe it as a whale and not ‘large fish’. The Word of God does not lie and I was bent on getting to the bottom of the issue (no pun intended). I decided to research this fact and found that the proper translation is indeed ‘large / great fish’ and not whale - phew! Let us start changing this (large fish AND NOT whale) wherever we can so we don’t get ridiculed by people “who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel! (Matt 23.24)”

Yes. A number of Biblical misunderstandings stem from looking at the Bible with a “popular” understanding of a Biblical account – which oftentimes are a simplification, or at times even the opposite, of what the Good Word actually says! Ha-dag gadol (“the great fish”) itself is rather ambiguous and could mean any other big aquatic animal other than “whale”.

 

[patrick457]

With reference to parables; parables generally do not mention real places or people by name. Usually goes something like, “a man in a distance land”.

Ah, but using names are not unknown in parables. What about Lazarus and the Rich Man? It’s entirely possible that that parable is based on a real story, but there also exists another possibility that the whole thing is fictional and is more used to make a point: in fact, the beggar has the name Lazaros, from the common Hebrew name Eleazar, which in turn means “God has helped”!