From: Jonah As Genuine History
Return to Home
By
Roland H. Worth, Jr. © 2016
Jonah As
Genuine History
by:
Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Copyright © 2016 by
author
Reproduction
of this book (and any other book I have online or in print) for non-profit
circulation by any electronic or print media means is hereby freely granted at
no cost—provided the text is not altered in any manner.
If
accompanied by additional, supplemental material—in agreement or
disagreement—it must be clearly and visibly distinguishable from the original
text.
Chapters in Book:
[Chapters In
This Part:]
Chapter 1: Jesus on
Jonah: Matthew 12:38-42 and Luke 11:29-32
* The Parable Hypothesis
*
Jesus Used It
As Illustrative Truth Rather Than Historical Proof?
*
The Kenosis
Doctrine
*
The Degree of
Literalness One Attributes to Jesus’ Resurrection Predisposes
How One Thinks About Jonah’s Literalness
*
Did Jesus
Fraudulently “Guilt Trip” His Listeners?
Chapter 2: The Narrative of
the Near Shipwreck Itself
* The Availability of the Ship Itself
* Jonah’s Ability to Sleep through the
Severe Storm
* The Sailors’ “Belief” in the God of
* The Sailors’ “Unlawful” Sacrifice
* Jonah’s Knowledge that the Sacrifice
Happened At All
* Jonah’s Attitude Toward the Mariners
Chapter 3: Challenges to the
Credibility of the “Fish” Element of the Story
* On the Meaning of “Fish” in the prophet and Jesus.
* Are Their Naturally Occurring “Fish”
that Could Have Swallowed Him
Whole?
* Was It a Specially Adapted or Even
Specially Created Aquatic Creature?
* Could Jonah Have Survived Under the
Circumstances Described?
* Jonah’s Knowledge of the Duration He
Spent in the Creature
[Chapters In
Part 2:]
Chapter 4: Challenges about
* The Choice of
* The Size of the City
A.
Language Proverbial for Being a Large / Huge City?
B.
Language Indicating the Duration Required to Preach
At Length in Each
Section of the City
or At Each Gate?
C.
Language Used Not to Describe the Physical Size of the City but the
Duration Required Due to Jonah’s
Continued Aversion to Being There At
All?
D. Language
Explicitly covering
Surrounding
Dependent Areas?
E.
Language Equivalent to the Administrative District that Was
Headquartered in
F. Language Intended to Convey the Length of Time
to Walk Around the
City’s Walls Rather than Through the City
Itself?
Chapter 5: Why did
* A Time of Heightened Religious Concern?
* A Time of Distress or Disaster?
* A Time of Self-Generated Religious
Enthusiasm Due to Mass Psychology
or Specific
Events?
* Other Possible Precipitating
Encouragements?
* The Role of Jonah’s Own Experience?
* The Role of Jonah’s Message of
Reform: Did He Directly Preach It Or Was
It Left Implicit?
* Did the People Become (Temporary or
Permanent) Monotheists Due to
Divine Judgment coming upon the City?
A. The Case Against
Them Doing So
B.
The Case in Favor of Them at Least Temporarily Embracing Monotheism
* Secondary Issues
A.
What Language did the Prophet Preach In?
B.
The Actions of the Animals in the City
[Chapters In
Part 3:]
Chapter 6: Internal Evidence
that the Writer “Can’t” Have Been the Biblical Jonah or a Contemporary
* Linguistic Arguments
* The Use of Distancing Rhetoric: The
Use of “Was.”
* The Use of an “Unhistorical”
Description of the Ruler
* The Use of Fasting in Connection with
Repentance
* The Absence of Any Mention of the
Journey in Kings
Chapter 7: Understanding the
Nature of the Book Itself
* Misunderstanding Its Purpose
A.
Missionary Nation Interpretation
B.
Recognition of God’s Love for the Gentiles
C.
Condemnation of Jewish Parochialism as Exclusively God’s People
* Differences Between Jonah and
Allegories
* Differences Between Jonah and Parables
Chapter 8: Assorted Other
Matters
* Intentional Exaggeration Scenario to
Explain the Book
* Too Many Miracles in the Book?
* Was Jonah Dead While in the
Whale?
A. The Dead Scenario
B.
Half Dead by Drowning When Swallowed by the Sea Beast?
C.
Alive Throughout the Time Within the Monstrous
Sea Creature?
* Jonah Outside the Book of Jonah
Introduction
Like the
other “shortish’ volume defending Biblical history that
I have currently in draft form--on the 10 plagues on Egypt--I assume that I
began the research on this one also in the later 1980s or very early
1990s. I never did write an introduction
for the “Jonah” entry, though, but I do believe that the title provides as good
a one as is needed. So here I will
simply note that unless otherwise indicated, the text is from the New King
James Version. There will be some
repetition of themes in different chapters because they will reoccur in
different contexts.
Roland
H. Worth, Jr.
Chapter 1:
Jesus on Jonah:
Matthew 12:38-42 and Luke 11:29-32
Matthew
41
The men of
Luke
31
The queen of the South will rise up in the judgment with the men of this
generation and condemn them, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear
the wisdom of Solomon; and indeed a greater than
Solomon is here. 32 The men of
* The parable hypothesis. It has been
argued that Jesus’ usage of Jonah is parallel to His use of parables: fictional stories used to teach a spiritual
point.[1]
This represents a very common misunderstanding concerning the nature of
the parables: they are actually stories
about real happenings or events that at least theoretically could
happen. They may be “exaggerated,” but
still based on “real world” roots. Hence
they are “true fact” or, at worst, “historical fiction” (i.e., fiction rooted
strongly in actual history) rather than purely imaginary, as often
assumed.
The sower going
out to sow.
The prodigal son.
The dishonest steward.
They are true to life even if not actually taken from life.
Those who reject Jonah as genuine history usually rebel at the idea
that it even could have happened.
Furthermore, with the possible exception of the story of Lazarus in
Hades (often assumed, we believe erroneously, to be a parable) no parable
uses a person’s actual name. For
reasons such as this a parable parallel seems untenable.
* Jesus used it as illustrative
proof not historical proof? It has been contended that Jesus was
merely citing the case as an illustration than as either prediction or
history. For one thing, as Anthony
Hanson observes, “Our Lord did not specifically say that the contents of the
Book of Jonah are historical.”[2]
On the other hand, what more would He have had to say
to make it plain that He did consider it historical?
When Jesus repeatedly referred to Abraham—in passing in the Synoptics and in significant number in John—is he speaking
for illustrative purposes only since He did not really believe Abraham was
historical either? If He argued that His
foes should learn from the example of Abraham—and He did: John 8:37, 40, 56—did He do so because He was
convinced the patriarch was real or because it was the shared myth of the
Jewish nation and Jesus simply embraces the myth for illustrative purposes?
Jesus argued for a triumph of His life over death on the basis of
Jonah. On the basis of Abraham, He
argued for His own pre-existence: “Most
assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was I am” (John
The scary thing is not that scholars will deny the genuineness of what
happened to Jonah, but that they will often also deny the physical resurrection
of Jesus Himself, which the prophet was introduced as precedent for. In other words, it is typically not “either /
or”—accepting one, but rejecting the other—but a denial of both. If a man or woman denies the physical
resurrection of the Lord, the bed-rock of Christianity, should it come as any
surprise if he or she willingly dismisses the ancient triumph of life over
apparent death embodied in Jonah’s life?
Furthermore some will even admit that the “illustrative” explanation
was hardly likely to even have been in Jesus’ mind. We quoted Hanson earlier, so this is the
appropriate place to share another quotation from his pen, “As a matter of fact
it is most likely that our Lord did believe in the literal accuracy of
the narrative of Jonah.”[3]
And that is still not
enough to convince him to accept it!
So Jesus’ declaration, even when intending personal acceptance of
the incident’s historicity, is irrelevant—that endorsement is still inadequate
to substantiate the point!
I will leave to others the obvious polemics that the one described as
our Savior was flat out ignorant and uninformed. Likewise I will merely pass by the equally
appalling intellectual arrogance that an armchair scholar two thousand years
later is confident that he has far greater understanding of the truth about
Jonah than Jesus did.
* In “polite” circles it’s called the
Kenosis doctrine; in blunter circles it’s called “Jesus was simply downright
ignorant of the truth about Jonah.” Use whichever wording you prefer. Stripped down to its core they really are
justly regardable as equivalent statements. In fact to avoid accepting their
equivalency you are really going to have to work hard.
The Kenosis doctrine is inescapable in this discussion: When Jesus came from Heaven certain Divine
characteristics were clearly reined in to keep with His now human form. Unless Jesus was involved in a strange
play-acting (bordering on hypocrisy) when He asked, “Who touched My clothes?” (Mark 5:30), He reflects a genuine lack of
knowledge.
First of all, it could be rhetorical:
designed to get a response out of people—to get others involved so they
will pay full attention to what is about to happen.
But let’s assume that He really was uncertain: It should be noted that there is a profound
difference between knowing everything that He wanted to know when He
wanted to know it and His invoking that power on a given
occasion. Hence a self-limitation when
in human form makes inherent sense, but it was one that He could have overcome
at any point that He chose to. Mark
But was His knowledge of supernatural things similarly
affected? If it pertained to spiritual
matters would He permit Himself not to know something that
touched on what He had to say? Would He
intentionally make Himself fallible?
The Biblical evidence argues strongly for a negative answer to the
question: He was the unique and sole way
to the Father (John 14:6). He was
granted the power to forgive sins (Matthew 9:6). As the result of His death, salvation would
be made possible to humanity (John
There are at least two additional indications that Yahweh acted in that
manner as well. First of all, the Holy
Spirit was designed to lead the apostles into “all truth” and the Spirit’s
message would be identical with that of Jesus (John
Furthermore Jesus had a unique
gift of the Spirit. John 3:34 tells us
that this unique gift was for the purpose of assuring that His message was
correct, accurate, and reliable, “For he whom God has sent utters the words of God, for he gives the
Spirit without measure.” Or as
So if Jesus taught something, He did so because the Father wanted Him
to, expected Him to, demanded Him to. Hence any “error” in Jesus’ teaching goes
back to the Heavenly Father.
Or does the Kenosis doctrine somehow affect the Father as well? Does even the Father lack the moral scruples
to tell the truth as it really was?
Without alluding to the role of the Spirit, Jesus stressed the
reliability of His teaching on the grounds that it did not originate with Him
but came from God. For example, in John
The mind of a person who accepts such assertions as unvarnished truth
has to rebel at the seemingly inescapable result of Jesus being subject to
error . . . especially on matters (like Jonah) that He chose to stress . . .
and especially the pervasive error hostile critics so often find in His
teaching:
*
Repeated “erroneous”
allusions to Biblical authorships that didn’t really come from that source but
were actually composed by later generations.
In the case of the Pentateuch (Genesis to Deuteronomy) from multiple
sources, each of which was written and rewritten either before or after their
combination into one volume—or both!
*
Repeated references to events that the text would lead you to believe occurred
in the ancient world, but which never actually happened at all. To limit ourselves to a handful of
controversial claims from Genesis:[4]
Divine creation of both
male and female and the institution of marriage (Matthew 19:4-6).
The murder of Abel
(Matthew
The flood in Noah’s day
and the destruction of “all” who were not in the ark (Matthew 24:37-39; Genesis
6).
Destruction
of
The real life existence
of men called Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Matthew
Or do you wish confirmation of the Divine origin of various moral
principles? Here are three I noted in
regard to the Exodus:[5]
(1)
While speaking to Moses at the burning bush, He claimed to be the God of
the patriarchs (Mark
(2)
In giving the Ten Commandments God commanded honoring one's parents
(Matthew 15:4, confirming Exodus
(3) God gave the death penalty for speaking
vilely of one's parents (Matthew 15:4, with probable reference to Exodus
Doubtless more could be added to make the point even more emphatic, but
these should be adequate for our current purpose.
The point of how widely applicable
is the premise of Jesus’ kenosis—to be blunt, of His ignorance—can hardly be
understated. Taking in isolation, any one of Jesus’
allusion to Old Testament events and authorships could theoretically represent
an allusion to popular opinion rather than to what had really happened. But when we find that the denial nearly
always comes time and time and time again, it is clear that the problem
lies not in the questioning of merely some one, single event, but a basic
hostility to the reliability of the entire Biblical account of ancient
history.
We know better today. Or is it
that we, in our arrogance, merely think we know better?
* The Degree of Literalness One Attributes
to Jesus’ Resurrection Predisposes How One Thinks About Jonah’s
Literalness: Why Acceptance of the
Literal, Physical Resurrection of Jesus’ Fleshly Body Predisposes One to a
Favorable Judgement on the Historicity of Jonah. Why a Rejection
of It Predisposes a Person to Reject the Historical Trustworthiness of the Book.
Gleason L. Archer effectively argues that a “literal” Jonah makes far
greater interpretive sense in the context that Jesus introduces it—as a
foreshadowing of what will objectively, literally, “visibly” occur. Or if one wishes to word it this way: Jonah makes far greater interpretive sense if
one believes in a literally resurrected Jesus,[6]
Jesus here [in Matthew
historical, then the type must also
have been historical. No fictional past
episode can serve as a prophetic type of a future literal fulfillment. Only fictions can correspond to fiction; only
fact can correspond to fact.
One would be silly to say that all who deny the historicity of
the Jonah account deny the historically literal resurrection of Jesus from the
dead. There’s
always those who are not consistent where outside critics (such as ourselves)
would expect them to be.
On the other hand, what percentage is it who deny
that Jonah was actually inside a giant fish and rescued from it alive who also
deny that Jesus was literally dead in a tomb for a similar period of time and likewise
brought out of it alive? I have never
seen a statistic on the subject, but it would be hard to imagine a very high percentage
of those who deny Jonah’s historicity who yet accept the
historicity of what happened to Jesus.
Or to look at it from the opposite perspective: it would be hard to imagine that of all those
who believe that Jesus was indeed dead and entombed for three days and
miraculously brought back to life . . . that of all those . . . that many deny
the accuracy of the account of what happened to Jonah.
In both cases, I’m trying to be generous rather than partisan. Whatever percentages you prefer: This is unquestionably a case where disbelief
in one is a very strong “marker” that there will also be disbelief
in the other. Similarly, belief in one
is a very strong “marker” that there will also be an embracing of belief
in the other.
To return to Archer’s remark that “only fictions can correspond to
fiction; only fact can correspond to fact,” if our estimates are anywhere close
to right, the completely candid rejecter of Jonah might well respond: “Yes, only fictions can correspond to
fiction: and the texts do exactly that
in comparing the fictional ‘resurrection’ of Jonah to the equally fictional
‘resurrection’ of Jesus. Neither
literally happened.”
But to say that would to admit that fundamental disbelief
motivates their entire system of Biblical interpretation and that strips
away the mask of scholarly “neutrality” and “objectivity” they prefer to
wear. Of course that is now.
In light of the degree naked unbelieving secularism has advanced in its
tyranny over our society, it is far from impossible that these sentiments will
in the lifetime of the young be transformed from an embarrassingly candid
admission of one’s true convictions into a proud boast of one’s
“compatibility” with the new and antagonistic “norms” expected and demanded in
the dream world of secularist bigotry . . . one in which a ghetto style
existence may be permitted such “unflexible” souls as
insist upon clinging to the reliability of their Bibles . . . until even that
can be safely smothered out of public display or buried in classes on “ancient
mythology.”
We live in a strange world. But
so did first century Christians and they managed to ultimately triumph as
well. We’ve “been there; done
that.” And can again.
* Did Jesus Fraudulently “Guilt Trip” His
Listeners? If the Events of Jonah Did
Not Occur, Then Jesus was Guilty of Loading a Huge (and Needless) Guilt Trip on
His Listeners Since the Precedent For Repentance in Nineveh Never Occurred and,
Therefore, Had no Genuine Relevance to Them At All. A discussion
of the relevance of Jesus’ words to Jonah nearly always center on the sea
catastrophe and whether Jesus’ words vindicate an insistence upon accepting as
literal historical truth the event that is described. What is often overlooked is that Jesus also
endorsed a second element in the Jonah saga, the repentance of the Ninevites, “The men of
Since there are unlikely to be many who will deny the swallowing of
Jonah who will admit the repentance of
If in point of fact the Ninevites never did repent (as rationalist higher critics
would have us believe), then any eschatological judgment on Jesus’ unbelieving
contemporaries would be quite unfair.
Jesus claimed that the men of
So we are not dealing with merely one
point in the narrative where Jesus’ supposedly invokes the fictional Old
Testament tale; we are dealing with two.
How many times must Jesus refer to such events about the same person on
the same mission before we feel compelled to admit that Jesus accepted it as genuine
history? One reference, perhaps,
could be verbally explained away, but how many more? At what point do we admit that it comes down
to whether Jesus’ evaluation of historicity is sounder than ours. With all that implies as to our concept
of Jesus’ own nature.
Chapter 2:
The Narrative of the Near Shipwreck Itself
Jonah 1: 1 Now the word
of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 2 “Arise,
go to
4
But the
Lord hurled a great wind upon the sea, and there
was a mighty tempest on the sea, so that the ship threatened to break up. Then the mariners were afraid, and each
cried out to his god. And they hurled
the cargo that was in the ship into the sea to lighten it for them. But Jonah had gone down into the inner part
of the ship and had lain down and was fast asleep. 6 So the
captain came and said to him, “What do you mean, you sleeper? Arise, call out to
your god! Perhaps the god will give a
thought to us, that we may not perish.”
7
And
they said to one another, “Come, let us cast lots, that
we may know on whose account this evil has come upon us.” So they cast lots, and the lot fell on
Jonah. 8 Then
they said to him, “Tell us on whose account this evil has come upon us. What is your occupation? And where do you come from? What is your country? And of what people are you?”
9
And
he said to them, “I am a Hebrew, and I fear the Lord,
the God of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land.” 10 Then the
men were exceedingly afraid and said to him, “What is this that you have
done!” For the men
knew that he was fleeing from the presence of the Lord,
because he had told them.
11
Then
they said to him, “What shall we do to you, that the
sea may quiet down for us?” For the sea
grew more and more tempestuous. 12 He said to them, “Pick me up and hurl me into the
sea; then the sea will quiet down for you, for I know it is because of me that
this great tempest has come upon you.” 13 Nevertheless, the men rowed hard to get back to dry
land, but they could not, for the sea grew more and more tempestuous against
them.
14
Therefore
they called out to the Lord, “O Lord, let us not perish for this man's life, and lay
not on us innocent blood, for you, O Lord, have
done as it pleased you.” 15 So they picked up Jonah and hurled him into the
sea, and the sea ceased from its raging.
16 Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord and made vows.
* The Availability of the Ship Itself. Some have
had great fun attacking the credibility of aspects related to the ship itself.
First of all, Joppa wasn’t much of a
port.[8] The chance of finding a ship there at any
given time was hit or miss since regular shipping schedules were not—and could
not, due to the limitations of ancient sailing—be maintained. Second of all, the chance of a Phoenician
ship being in Joppa was modest, much less one that was intending to sail all
the way to Tarshish.
Thirdly, the practicalities of such a lengthy trip make it
unbelievable. Let’s lump these and a few
other questions together and see whether this amounts to a significant
challenge or, in the words of a great playwright, “much ado about nothing.”
Let’s start with Joppa. Yes, it was a
minor port. The presence of a vessel
intending to sail all the way to
In all fairness a certain percentage of ships landed up where they did
not expect to be—for example, think shipboard problems or unexpected storms
even in the good weather months. Yet
even if you land up in Joppa by inadvertence, you still want to get home.
If Tarshish was their port of origin--the
destination being their original point of origin is surely not to be regarded
as irrational--such a choice would make a great deal of sense. Even out of Joppa.
Such would be true even if their immediate objective after Joppa
was some intermediate seaport. There is
no reason to assume that they necessarily intended a “straight through”
transit.
(Which also deals with the objection that “landlubbers” would normally
expect to take a ship from one specified port to another, then getting on the
next ship that took them to a nearer port, etc., until they finally reached
their destination. So long as he knew
their scheduled goal, Jonah would regard such intermediate stops simply as a
price to pay to get as far away from Israel as he could and could count himself
fortunate indeed that the first ship he got on intended to ultimately go so far
as Tarshish.
(The “fare” he paid could easily have been to the intermediate point,
with the understanding that so long as they were still clearly traveling to Tarshish afterwards, he would accompany them by additional
payment. For that matter their intention
could have been so clear cut and unalterable by any foreseeable event that full
payment came “up front.”)
May to October was the normal maximum length for major Mediterranean
ship journeys.[9] The rest of the year, the chance of severe
storms was so great that the only voyages--if attempted at all--were either short
distance and/or ones that could hug the coastline. There is nothing in the text, however, that
would argue that this attempted journey took place at any other time than the
preferred May-October “window.” Even
during the “good” months major storms were definitely possible—though far rarer,
however.
The emphasis that this storm was miraculously produced (Jonah
1:4) and the willingness of the crew to believe that a god could stop it (1:6) could
argue that this was not the season for storms. In the yearly “stormy” season would even a
pagan expect their gods to stop what was inevitable for that time of year?
Even laying that aside as chancy speculation, the statistical odds
would still be for the journey to be attempted during the normal voyaging months
and there is nothing in the text to hint in any other direction. Indeed, if it had been in the most
dangerous months, would it have not been an obvious “enhancement” of the power
of the narrative to point out that Jonah was so desperate that he was even
willing to undertake the journey in spite of the hostile season?
Some have seen practical logistical
problems for Jonah. A traveler paid for
passage and provided for all his own necessities. Jonah paid the fare (1:3) and for that
distance from
In any age, he who has the money can usually buy what he wants. Customary practices will be waved; they may
grumble and growl. But if the money is
good and this strange Hebrew is willing to eat their (non-kosher) grub, who are
they to naysay him? This is not “special
pleading;” it is simply a recognition of the cooperativeness (even if grudging)
that can be obtained if one’s situation is desperate enough and one has enough
money to make it worth the other person’s effort.
So, yes, there are unexpected
elements in this, but not impossible ones.
You make the best out of a situation and Jonah would have done exactly
that in his flight.
And before we leave this section we
should spend at least a little time on the question of where was Tarshish? Strangely
there are a wide variety of sites that have been proposed.[10] Although the Tarshish
in
One will easily see that such
oddness as a boat going to either of the alternative Tarshishes
would be far, far less unexpected to pop up in Joppa. Personally the Spanish destination still
seems the most likely, if for no other reason than if Jonah was trying to “flee
Jehovah” he could hardly get much further away from “God’s land” than fleeing
to the
* Jonah’s Ability to Sleep through the Severe Storm. The text
does not assert that Jonah went to sleep while the storm was at its worst. He could have gone to sleep when it had
barely begun or before it had sprung up.
In either case, the phenomena of sleep from mental exhaustion is quite
understandable if we concede him to be a man of basic integrity, a man who knew
full well that he was not doing the right thing as a prophet of Jehovah.
His heart battling with his principles could only produce an intense
turmoil that would have “left him physically, mentally, and emotionally
exhausted.”[12] Sleep is a natural refuge in such
circumstances.
* The Sailors’ “Belief” in the God of
Why shouldn’t they?
Each of the crew had already
appealed to the god(s) he himself worshipped (1:5) and it had done absolutely
no good at all. Then the lot to decide
who was responsible for the catastrophe resulted in Jonah being selected
(1:7). Then he admitted that he had
rejected Yahweh’s direct orders (1:9-10).
With that as backdrop, what other
logical course did they have than to believe that this God of
It didn’t mean that they ceased to
be polytheists. It simply meant, that at
least in such trying circumstances, that the God of
* The Sailors’ “Unlawful” Sacrifice. Bernhard Duhm find another problem in the fact that this sacrifice
was “contrary to Jewish law.”[15]
The Jewish law regulated Jews. These were Gentiles. That they expressed their thankfulness in the
fashion that fit their cultural background was to be expected. (And Jonah wasn’t around to tell them how or
whether they could sacrifice at all!)
What was Jehovah supposed to do?
Treat a show of respect with thunderbolts like ancient Zeus and strike
them dead?
Furthermore this was clearly a
sacrifice of thanksgiving rather than of worship in the strict
sense. They didn’t claim to be
priests. They didn’t claim to be
Jews. They didn’t have enough knowledge
on the subject to claim that the sacrifice met the norms expected of Jehovah
worship.
They simply claimed to be thankful. And in those terms, where is the grounds for
censure?
Indeed, if they had not done something
after being saved from a watery grave, one might well object to the narrative
on the grounds of their lack of gratitude.
John Craghan
goes to the other extreme of criticism by arguing that the narrative is
unhistorical because the typical good guys (Jews and prophets) are pictured as
ultra-foolish and the prototypically bad guys (pagan sailors/Nineveh) are
pictured as incredibly good. In regard
to the sailors “and then the Ninevites” they both
“prove to be models of piety and contrition.”[16]
To make this analysis work well one
must use the term “models” in a very limited sense, there being no hint that
they were perfect ones: There is no
evidence that their thankfulness resulted in a (full) conversion to the
Lord. Respect, honor for, such as they
had to other respected deities, of course.
But monotheism, no. Nor a permanent commitment to Yahweh.
Isn’t there a profound difference between gratitude toward and feeling any sense of deep obligation toward? (Mild obligation, perhaps. But
a profound one?) One might
permanently be appreciative of a Divine blessing, but (unfortunately) never
allow it to permanently alter one’s behavior.
The “vows” offer the best hope of something greater than gratitude
being involved—though the fact they made them was surely motivated by
that. They made “vows” yes and we have
no reason to doubt they fulfilled them.
But what were they?
Moral reform would fit with the Ninevite
change, but becoming a Jewish convert would not be required to do that—even
though it is the context that we, so many centuries later, might well
place it in. The apostle Paul certainly
held out the concept of a certain elemental level of morality being obtainable
independent of doing so on the grounds that the God of Israel taught those
moral precepts,
For as many as have
sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in
the law will be judged by the law 13 (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the
doers of the law will be justified; 14 for
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law,
these, although not having the law, are a law to
themselves, 15 who show the
work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing
witness, and between themselves their
thoughts accusing or else excusing them)
16 in the day when God will judge the secrets of
men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.
(Romans 2)
It is repentance in this form
that best fits what we know of the Ninevites and if
moral reform was the—or among the—vows made by the sailors, what we
would expect of them as well.
* Jonah’s Knowledge that the Sacrifice Happened At All.A. J. Glaze wonders, “If the
record is biographical, how could Jonah have known the details of the sailors’
repentance (
A. What He Could Have Responsibly Deduced From
Personal Knowledge and Observed Behavior. Combining with the previous verse we
have, “So they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the sea ceased
from its raging. Then
the men feared the Lord exceedingly, and offered
a sacrifice to the Lord and took vows” (
His presence had caused their problem; his removal would eliminate
their problem. At least so far as the
storm ceasing, that much he could be confident in writing without
gaining any further information.
As to their fearing/respecting the Lord’s power “exceedingly,” did it
take a prophet or a son of a prophet to responsibly deduce that they would
react this way? Would not any other
reaction have been flat unnatural? They
had been in the gravest danger of death and, suddenly, they were saved from
it. All because this strange prophet of
Yahweh had said it would happen.
As to offering “a sacrifice,” the question becomes murkier. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we
have no idea of what was sacrificed or what facilities they
normally carried on board for this and other religious rituals while at
sea. One would naturally anticipate that
they would go through some kind of observance, utilizing whatever they
had available.
A “sacrifice” does not have to carry the connotation of a burnt
offering, especially of a large animal.
This was a ship and fires aren’t exactly encouraged on wooden
ones! A raised “barbeque” type container
one might imagine and even there, there would be limitations of size seemingly
ruling out anything large. So we can
imagine some small creature, perhaps even a bird being killed and ceremonially
offered.
Or, for that matter, a drink offering. One
can imagine it coming from the most valuable and respected vintage they might
have on board. (Thereby
ruling out the need for potentially dangerous fire entirely.)
Living in an age when sacrifices were so common an expression of
religious reverence, it would hardly be surprising if their respect and fear of
God were manifested in this manner.
Would they have done such in honor of any other god? Surely, at least this much! So for them to do this in honor of Yahweh
makes perfect sense in the context of its time and place. It is the type of action Jonah would know
would be typical of their religio-cultural
background.
As to the “vows” they offered, we are unaware of their content,
duration, or purpose. Whether this would
have been a likely reaction depends upon their customs and Jonah’s knowledge of
them. He could have heard some of them mutter,
half of themselves, “If this storm would just break I’d (and fill in the
blank).” For them to formalize their
idle words when what they wished for was so stunningly fulfilled would be
natural—hence the giving of a formal vow of such-and-such.
(Which is as far as we can go because we don’t know
what it was. As noted earlier, a
reformed life seems the likeliest—or at least the reform of some particular
aspect of life they recognized most needed it.)
All three elements would have been anticipated by Jonah—the reverential
fear (quite likely combined with naked fear as well) is a foregone conclusion
assuming the sailors were rational creatures.
The offering was a probability. The vows a likely action.
B.
What He Could Have Learned Afterwards. What we have examined so far has been
what it would have been reasonable for Jonah to responsibly deduce without
personal knowledge of the shipboard events that followed his being thrown
overboard. But what about through
second-hand sources or a later direct discussion with a participant?
It certainly would not have occurred immediately. The storm had broken and the captain was
hardly likely to sail back to the port he had left. Instead he would be doing the best he could
to make fast headway to his immediate destination.
Even Jonah would be unlikely to immediately be curious. He had just gone through a horrifying
experience. Emotionally and physically,
he would need a “short time for physical recuperation and even more for
digesting the spiritual lessons to be learned from his experiences.”[18]
Yet it would hardly be unnatural for the sailors to return to the same
port on a later journey. One can easily
imagine then muttering to the locals, “The last time we visited this port!” and
repeating the near disaster at sea. It
would be hard to imagine Jonah’s name not being scarred in their
memory—and being repeated . . . shall we say “with hearty anathemas” over the
local brew?
Here we have a prophet returned from
Glaze is displeased with a naturally learned scenario, “Although he
could have learned these details later, they are handled narratively.”[19] Was the author supposed to have interjected,
“But I learned later that such and such happened?” He could have done it that way, of
course, but why was there a need?
We are reduced, in effect, to the objection that the Jonah author used
a different narrative style than we would prefer. How can such possibly be a decisive
objection—for that matter, much of a meaningful objection at all? Doesn’t an author have the option of choosing
his own narrative style? Personally, I
much prefer the narrative style of the Synoptics to
that of John. But do I dismiss the
latter simply because it is not the way that I, personally, would tell the
story?
C. And Then There’s the Not Insignificant Option
of Divinely Revealed Information. Of course none of the above is
required. Inspiration from God could
have informed him of what he needed to know.
Or inspiration could have protected him from misunderstanding or
unintentionally misrepresenting what he had heard afterwards.
We put this option last on our list, not because it is of least
importance but because the type of folk who make the kind of objections we are
considering are the least likely to consider it as more than an idle
fantasy. After all, if God really did
reveal His will we might be expected to accept it. Worse yet--where applicable to us--to obey it
. . . of all the horrible things for the Creator to demand of the created! But we strive to speak in language they can
more readily understand and accept.
But for those open to such an option it should be noted that Jonah
would surely have expressed more than a little interest as to how the mariners’
fared. He had been interested enough in
their welfare—and honest enough as to his own guilt—to admit that the danger
arose due to his presence. Even that
getting rid of him by casting him overboard would solve their problem (
It would not have been surprisingly in the least if Jonah had
eventually asked God. What would be more
natural?
* Jonah’s Attitude Toward the Mariners. In an
apparent criticism of the credibility of the narrative, John Craghan notes that “[i]n his
actions Jonah displays a remarkable inconsistency. He does not disparage these pagan
mariners. However, he does disparage the
Ninevites and not even a storm will free him from his
entrenched theological position.”[20] In other words: How can Jonah be so friendly to the mariners
and hostile to the Ninevites? They are both pagans.
We could point to the strange
inconsistencies of human psychology, but there are even more obvious
explanations.
Jonah was on that boat because he
wanted to be. The pagans were being of
benefit to him in assisting him flee. At
the least, he would feel a (condescending?) courtesy for the assistance. In contrast the prophet did not want
to go to
And though he preached he was still hostile to the city even when they
vowed to mend their ways. Modern chapter
divisions are quite useful, but there are times when running together the last
words of one (in this case, chapter 3) and the first of the following chapter
(4) is quite useful: “Then God saw their
works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster
that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it. But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he
became angry.”
His predisposition was hostility and he retained it even when he was
successful. To be blunt he wanted his
mission to be a failure. Those words
aren’t in the text, but will anyone try to read the textual intent any
differently? Jonah’s lament surely
demonstrates that, “Therefore now, O Lord, please
take my life from me, for it is
better for me to die than to live!” (4:2). God rejoiced; Jonah was horrified.
Contrast that with the situation he felt toward the mariners. Pagans or not, we would say that he “owed”
them and he knew it—as demonstrated by his recommendation, “Pick me up and
throw me into the sea; then the sea will become calm for you. For I know that this great tempest is because of me” (
Chapter 3:
Challenges to the Credibility
of the “Fish” Element of the Story
Jonah 1: 15 So they picked up Jonah and threw him into the sea, and the
sea ceased from its raging. 17 Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow Jonah. And
Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights
Jonah
2: 1 Then
Jonah prayed to the Lord his God from the fish's belly.
2 And he said:
“I cried out to the Lord because of my affliction, and He answered me. ‘Out of the belly of Sheol
I cried, and You
heard my voice. 3 For You
cast me into the deep, into the heart of the seas, and the floods surrounded
me; all Your billows and Your waves passed over me.
4
Then I said, ‘I have been cast out of Your
sight; yet I will look again toward Your holy temple.’ 5 The
waters surrounded me, even to
my soul; the deep closed around me; weeds were wrapped around my head. 6 I went down to the moorings of the mountains; the earth with its
bars closed behind me forever;
yet You
have brought up my life from the pit, O Lord, my
God. 7 When my soul fainted within me, I remembered the Lord; and my prayer went up to You,
into Your holy temple. 8 Those who regard worthless idols
forsake their own Mercy. 9 But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay what I have
vowed. Salvation is of the Lord.”
* On the Meaning of “Fish” in the Prophet and
Jesus. Billy K. Smith notes that the word for “fish”
includes the widest variety of aquatic species, including the shark and whale.[21] This is true of both the Hebrew word used in
the minor prophet text and the Greek one used in Matthew’s reference to the
event.[22] In other words to limit the potential
meaning to “whale” is to impose major limits not necessarily intended by the
original languages.
Some extracts from an article by Dave Miller sums up the matter
concisely,[23]
The actual text of the
book of Jonah states that “the Lord had prepared a great “fish” to swallow
Jonah” (Jonah
Moving to New Testament
Greek, and the verse under discussion in this article (Matthew
Greek lexicographers are
decisive on the meaning of this word. The
highly respected Greek scholars Arndt and Gingrich offer only one definition
for ketos—“sea-monster” (1957, p. 432). The dictionary that was designed for use with
the United Bible Societies’ prestigious Greek New Testament text (A Concise
Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament) defined ketos
as “large sea creature” (Newman, 1971, p. 100). Thayer listed three terms—“sea-monster, whale,
huge fish” (1901, p. 346), with the reference to “whale” being merely one
possibility among many others within the broader sense of
the term.
Some insist upon ketos
specifically referring to “whale.”[24]
The three expressions used by Thayer
are intriguing: “sea-monster” refers to the
creature’s size, fierce appearance, and how frightening it was. It describes the creature according to the human
reaction to it. “Fish” defines it in
terms of it being an aquatic creature.
What else are you likely to describe a large sea creature than as some
kind of fish—again an expression that covers a wide range of actual
entities. Only “whale” identifies a particular
type of aquatic creature or frightening giant fish.
Now unless Jonah was well acquainted
with the sea, which of these terms was he likely to use to describe the
creature? Was he likely to have the
foggiest idea what a whale even looked like?
That his language intended this sense is inherently doubtful.
Did “fish” do justice to the entity?
“Fish”—well that was something you caught in the streams of the country
or at the
Hence there seems no way that the
term could have avoided the connotation of “sea monster” no matter what
else the expression could include—or refer to—in a different set of
circumstances.
* Are There Naturally Occurring “Fish” that Could Have Swallowed
Him Whole?
On the affirmative side, this often evolves into a discussion of
alleged specific cases where such has happened.
Grace W. Kellogg wrote a small volume called The
Bible Today, in which she collected a number of such alleged incidents
involving both humans and large sea creatures.[25]
She also names specific types that theoretically
would be capable of such an action,[26]
There are at least two
known monsters of the deep who could easily have
swallowed Jonah. They are the Balaenoptera Musculus or
sulphur-bottom whale, and the Rhinodon Typicus or whale shark.
Neither of these monsters of the deep have any teeth. They feed in an interesting way by opening
their enormous mouths, submerging their lower jaw, and rushing
through the water at terrific
speed. After straining out the water,
they swallow whatever is left.
A sulphur-bottom whale,
one hundred feet long, was captured off
On the negative side of the
argument, it evolves into a challenge of whether specific incidents of reported
human and animal swallowing—and their survival—have actually occurred. Perhaps the most famous modern example is
that of the British sailor James Bartley, who was reportedly swallowed in 1891
by a whale off the
Peter C. Craig refers to how “it
used to be fashionable” to recount this incident when the credibility of Jonah
was discuss.[28] At the time the story was accepted as
credible even by some generally hostile to such claims.[29]
Later a detailed examination of the alleged swallowing cast considerable doubt
on the credibility of the tale.
One commentator who noted this
seemed clearly disgruntled about having to back off from accepting the traditional
story about Bartley and hoped that further examination would yield a more
positive result.[30] (And why shouldn’t he? Who wants what seems to be a fine piece of
evidence for or against any respected argument to have to be
junked?)
One key factor in the negative reappraisal was the fact that “the widow
of the ship’s master affirmed afterwards that no sailor went overboard during
the term of her husband’s captaincy of the vessel.”[31] It is not idle “reconciling” to wonder how
many husbands in that period would have been willing to bluntly inform their
wife of how harsh and dangerous things could be in rough seas. In other words, some (many?) husbands would
have preferred to “spare” their spouse the unvarnished horrors that sometimes
occurred.
Then there are those who perceive events
that may be roughly parallel incidents but wonder whether they quite measure up
to what would be most preferred as collateral evidence. Hence H. L. Ellison contends that, “There are
sufficient well-attested occurrences to show that a man could survive under
these circumstances. . . .” On the other
hand, he finds that “none of them seems to be strictly parallel, and they were
certainly of shorter duration.”[32]
It should be noted that whatever
modern parallels that occur would be few in number. If what Jonah record is a relatively common
occurrence, would the concept of “miraculous” ever be attached to it in the
first place? For that matter would Jonah
himself consider what happened anything more than incredibly bad (and then good) luck? What
drove home the necessity of a miraculous event was that such things simply
didn’t happen—at least not normally or commonly
* Was It a Specially Adapted or Even Specially Created Aquatic
Creature?
This solves some of
the disadvantages and difficulties of locating a documented parallel from later
sailor experience. It allows an
individual to readily admit—depending upon who is doing the speaking—that “of
course” this couldn’t happen—not naturally, that is. The fact that it became possible was
because it was part of the miracle.
That made possible what would otherwise have been impossible.
M. R. DeHaan
argues that the fact that the giant fish was “prepared” to swallow up Jonah
means that[33]
The search by science for
the fish is quite futile, and men never will be able to find one like it, for
it was a specially prepared fish which God furnished for this particular
occasion. . . . It was a specially
prepared fish, and presumably God made it just for this occasion, because there
was no other existing fish
which would serve the
purpose. If there had been a fish in
existence that could do the work of swallowing Jonah and keep him alive, then
why did Jonah have to prepare one especially for this purpose?
In this and what follows, DeHaan seems to oscillate between the idea of adaptation
of an existing creature and the special creation of a new
fish-beast. The acceptance of the former
does not necessarily require the latter.
The latter would argue that even the most “adapted” of existing
creatures would not quite serve the purpose that was intended.
The key word on this subject is
found in
A selection of
translations provide these renderings:
“Prepared:” ASV, ERV, ISV, NKJV, World English
Bible
“Provided:” NIV
“Appointed:” ESV, Holman, NASB
“Sent:” God’s Word, New English Translation
The first of these translations
quite easily carries the connotation of either adaptation or special creation,
as does “provided,” though a big vaguer.
The alternatives of “appointed” and “sent” simply carry the idea that
God selected this particular creature and nothing more. This itself creates
a potential problem: Why did God select
this particular fish when, without miraculous adaption
any fish of this type would have
done the job? Does not the very idea of
a special selection virtually require the idea of adaptation?
Theodore Laetsch
apparently rejects both the special adaptation and special creation options
though he believes the incident to represent genuine history: he argues that the Hebrew term being
translated “never is used in the sense of ‘create’ in Scripture. It always denotes to count, or to assign,
commission.”[34] Billy K. Smith also uses the meaning of the
word to disprove any theory of special creation being envolved.[35]
T. T. Perowne, who
vigorously defends the historicity of the events, also concurs in this
judgment: “The same word and tense are
used of the gourd, the worm, and the East wind, ch. iv. 6, 7, 8. They do not necessarily imply any previous or
special preparation, much less the creation of these various agents for the
purpose to which they were put; but merely that they were appointed to it by
Him, whom ‘all things serve.’ ”[36] William A. Karraker
also cites the same examples to prove that point, “It was simply ordered to be
on hand at the moment the ejected prophet struck the water.”[37] Nothing more.
On the other hand, there would
certainly seem to be a supernatural alteration of natural abilities and
events for the gourd to have grown so quickly and for the worm to have
destroyed so swiftly. Even here the
“natural” was significantly altered by the Lord. Hence supernatural alteration of the sea
beast’s natural ability—to assure the survival of Jonah—would still seem quite
compatible with the text even if we do not opt for the scenario of special
creation.
For that matter, God certainly did not create the wind
that day, but did He cause it to be so powerful, thereby precipitating
the events that are narrated? Unless He
did so, aren’t we pushing the narrative back into Jonah having a hideously “bad
luck day” having nothing directly connected to God? If we are talking Deity having a direct role
in the event even at this point, aren’t we talking about a miraculous
change of what would otherwise have occurred?
At the minimum surely the Lord acted
to assure that that particular sea creature was at the right
place at the right time to swallow Jonah. Grant this much Divine intervention and one
seemingly has removed as well any a priori objection to the possibility
that God miraculously adapted or created the fish to be able to perform its
function of preserving Jonah alive and delivering him to land.
God has the power to “manipulate” event in whatever manner
that is required to carry out His intents and purposes. It is but one aspect of His omnipotence.
* Could Jonah Have Survived Under the Circumstances Described?
Ebenezer Henderson
argues that it would have been impossible, from knowledge and precedents, for
Jonah to have survived “the foul air in a fish for the length of time here
specified. . . .”[38] He embraces the view of the Jewish scholar Abenerza who wrote, “No man has the power of living in the
bowels of a fish for a single hour: how
much less for such a number of hours, except by the power of a miracle.”[39]
So, the argument seems to be, Jonah was
in the fish but he was miraculously permitted to survive the three days without
breathing since breathing was impossible?
Does this not create a “greater and more impressive” miracle since added
on to the survival now comes the ability to live without new oxygen? Wouldn’t it be simpler to say that God either
modified an existing species or created a new creature where adequate oxygen would
somehow be available?
* Jonah’s Knowledge of the Duration He Spent in the Creature. A. J. Glaze
argues against the “biographical” interpretation of the book—that it was either
written by the prophet himself or based on what he reported—by making the
challenge, “[H]ow could he have known the length of
time of his stay in the fish’s belly so accurately, ‘three days and three
nights,’ while in utter darkness?”[40]
Well, one can imagine him washing up
on the shore and His pleadingly look up to heaven and, half-begging, giving
thanks and then the inevitable, “How long, Lord, how long?” And the Lord responds with—silence? I think not.
Or, for example, he knew he went
overboard on a Wednesday and the first people he meets on dry land he naturally
asks, “What day of the week is it?” Thereby learning the length of the confinement.
Neither scenario is an unnatural
one. Both rely on innate human curiosity. What would be incredible of his learning the
duration by either method?
Glaze though has a problem with any
explanation, “Although he could have learned these details later, they are
handled narratively.”[41] So the real objection seems to be that because
the author did not write it the way the objector prefers, there is no way the
work could have come from Jonah or a contemporary.
With all due respect, this reduces the question to stylistic
objections rather than content objections. People tell their story in different
fashions. Who is it for the reader to
say, “Even though it happened to you, you shouldn’t have told it that
way!” If the writer is providing an
honest account of what happened, shouldn’t we be grateful that we even have
the account?
[1] Anthony
Hanson, Jonah and Daniel (Madras, India:
Christian Literature Society, 1955), 11.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Many sources will provide a similar list, but
the one I utilized was Shelby Floyd. “Christ and Genesis; Biblical Inspiration, No. 2.” 2008.
At: http://www.preachthe wordatheartland.com/docs/monthly/36--Biblical%20Inspiration%20No.%202.htm. [Accessed February 2014.]
[5] Roland H. Worth, Jr.
Concise Handbook of Biblical Inspiration: Almost 800 Internal Assertions of Accuracy
and Revelation. 2012. At:
http://www.biblicalresearch resources.com. [Accessed February 2014.]
[6] Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible
Difficulties (rand Rapids,
[7]
[8] Lowell K. Handy, Jonah’s World: Social Science and the Reading of Prophetic
Story (
[9] Ibid., 68
[10] For a good discussion of these see Ibid.,
27-31.
[11] Brynmor F. Price and Eugene
A. Nida, “The Book of Jonah,” in David J. Clark, et
al., A Translator’s Handbook on the Books of Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah (UBS
Handbook Series). (New
York: United Bible Societies, 1993), 52. Both the 1978 and 1993 editions were used in
the research on this study.
[12] Billy K. Smith, Layman’s Bible Book
Commentary: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1982), 140.
[13] Bernhard Duhm, The Twelve Prophets,
translated by Archibald Duff (London:
Adam and Charles Black, 1912), 259.
[14] W. E.
Orchard, Oracles of God: Studies in
the Minor Prophets ( London: James Clarke & Company, Limited, 1922), 146.
[15] Duhm, 259.
[16] John Craghan, Old Testament Message: A Biblical-Theological Commentary—Esther,
Judith, Tobit, Jonah, Ruth (Wilmington,
Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1982), 167.
[17] A. J.
Glaze, Jr., “Jonah,” in The Broadman Bible Commentary:
Hosea-Malachi (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1972), 155.
[18] H. L. Ellison, “Jonah,” in Expositor’s Bible Commentary
(volume 7) (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985), 379.
[19] Glaze, 155.
[20] Craghan, 175.
[21] Smith, 144.
[22] John Walton, “Jonah,” in John Walton and Bryan Beyer,
Obadiah, Jonah (Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1982, 1988), 29.
[23] Dave Miller, “Jonah and the ‘Whale’?” Part of the Apologetics Press website. At:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=69. [Accessed February 2014.]
[24] William A. Karraker, The Bible in Questions and Answers (New
York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1953),
723.
[25] J. Vernon McGee, Jonah and Micah (Pasadena,
California: Thru the Bible Books, 1979)
quotes at length from the book (40-42).
[26] J.
Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J.
[27] D. E.
Hart-Davies, Jonah: Prophet and
Patriot (London: Thynne
& Company, Ltd., 1925; reprinted, 1951), 104-105, provides an account of
the incident.
[28] Peter
C. Craig, Daily Study Bible: Twelve
Prophets (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1984), 213.
[29]
Hart-Davies, 104-105, provides examples.
[30] Ibid., 105.
[31] Craig, 213.
[32] Ellison, 363.
[33] M. R. DeHaan, Jonah:
Fact or Fiction? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1957), 75-76.
[34] Theodore Laetsch, The Minor Prophets (Saint Louis,
Missouri: Concordia Publishing House,
1956), 229; cf. his similar remark on 228.
[35] Smith, 143-144.
[36] T. T. Perowne, Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges: Obadiah and Jonah (Cambridge: At the University Press, 1883; 1898 reprint),
67.
[37] Karraker, 723-724.
[38] Ebenezer
Henderson, The Book of the Minor Prophets (
[39] As quoted by Ibid., 207.
[40] Glaze, 155.
[41] Ibid.