The Prophet Jonah, as depicted by Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel
ishtartv.com- christiancourier + wikipedia
by Wayne Jackson
Edwin Settle, a former college
professor and minister (with a doctorate from Yale Divinity School), has
directed an arrogant attack against the book of Jonah. His ill-conceived
article, titled “Jonah’s big fish story teaches important lesson,” contains the
following charge: “The book of Jonah cannot be accepted as history” (Settle,
B-4).
Professor Settle listed several
“inaccuracies” allegedly contained in the book.
(1) It is incredible that one
could be alive for three days in a fish’s belly.
(2) It is unlikely that a city
would so unanimously respond to the preaching of someone of a different
language and religion.
(3) Jonah speaks of “weeds
wrapped about [his] head,” which does not fit the description of being inside a
fish.
(4) While there was a king of
Assyria, there was no “king of Nineveh,” as suggested in the book.
(5) The descriptive that Nineveh
was a city of “three days journey” is erroneous; the metropolis was not nearly
so large.
In spite of these supposed
blunders, Dr. Settle contends that there are valuable spiritual truths in the
book of Jonah (e.g., nations ought to live peaceably with one another, etc.).
He suggests that we should learn from the lessons of this ancient document and
allow them to motivate us toward a higher level of ethical existence.
Prior to giving some
consideration to the accusations contained in Settle’s misguided diatribe, a
couple of preliminary observations are in order.
First, it is certainly a curious
twist of logic that contends one can be motivated toward a more mature level of
spiritual responsibility by reflecting upon a narrative that is filled with
lies. How does error encourage truth? That makes no sense whatsoever.
Second, if the book of Jonah is
actually a fictitious account with no historical basis, what does this do to
the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth? The Lord plainly declared that Jonah was
three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish (Mt. 12:40). He even
argued that this was a typological preview of his confinement in the tomb for
the same period of time. If the episode regarding Jonah never happened, Christ
reasoned falsely, and His divine status is clearly impeached.
But let us consider the
professor’s charges.
(1) Is it “incredible” that Jonah
could have survived for three days in the fish’s belly? Only if divine
intervention is incredible. The fact is, the record clearly states that “God
prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah” (1:17). The objection thus actually smacks
of an atheistic mentality.
That aside, even from a strictly
naturalistic viewpoint, survival after being swallowed by huge fish is not
impossible. In the late 1920’s a seaman was swallowed by a large sperm whale in
the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. After three days he was recovered
unconscious but alive, though he had some damage to his skin (Harrison, 907).
(2) Is it “unlikely” that such a
mass conversion could have taken place? Perhaps, but “unlikely” is not
impossible. The question is: are we dealing with a credible historical
document?
If there is no logical reason to
doubt the historicity of the book of Jonah, then its testimony as to the moral
reformation on the part of the Ninevites must stand. There is no evidence
against such a concept. We should also remind ourselves that Jesus Christ
affirmed that the people of Nineveh did, in fact, repent (Mt. 12:41).
(3) Is Jonah’s description of
“weeds” about his head inconsistent with his sojourn in the fish’s belly? It
apparently never occurred to Dr. Settle that the prophet’s declaration
regarding the “weeds” could have been descriptive of his descent into the murky
waters prior to actually being swallowed by the sea creature. Or it is not
impossible that Jonah could have been consumed along with a quantity of
sea-weed. This quibble is truly one of desperation.
(4) But what of the objection
that there was no “king of Nineveh.” First, it overlooks a common biblical
usage by which a capital city sometimes stands for the nation itself. Hence the
“king of Samaria” (1 Kgs. 21:1) is the equivalent of the king of Israel, and
the “king of Damascus” (2 Chron. 24:23) is the same as the king of Syria.
Moreover, whereas Assyria
sometimes wielded significant dominion, “at this stage the Assyrian king
exercised absolute control over a very limited region centred on Nineveh —
hence the designation ‘king of Nineveh’” (Alexander, 60). This objection is
thus without validity.
(5) Was Nineveh a city “of three
days’ journey” (3:3). Since archaeological excavations have shown that Nineveh
was about eight miles in circumference, it is argued that it would not have
taken “three days” to walk through, or around, the city.
What our critical friend fails to
realize, however, is that the term “city” actually encompassed a larger region
than the territory within the walls. In Genesis 10 we note: “Out of that land
he went forth into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah,
and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same is the great city)” (10,11). C.F.
Keil thus notes that these four places composed a large “composite city”
consisting of “a range of towns, to which the name of the (well-known) great
city of Nineveh was applied” (Keil, 167).
When those who are consumed with
modernistic presumptions assert that there are mistakes in the sacred volume,
they reveal that the problem is with their own limited knowledge. The Bible is
accurate.
Jonah and the Whale in the Jami al-tawarikh (c. 1400), Metropolitan Museum of Art
Depiction of Jonah in a champlevé enamel (1181) by Nicholas of Verdun in the Verduner altar at Klosterneuburg abbey, Austria.
|