Is Jonah a Whale of a Tale?

[This post is written as a supplement to the upcoming Sunday morning sermon on the book of Jonah. The author is firmly committed to the inerrancy and inspiration of Scripture.]

In scholarly writings, the historicity of the book of Jonah has long been debated. While some within the non-historical camp have attributed the book to an author who wrote the work as if it were history, most have attempted to explain it from the standpoint of a parable (or a midrash). The historical camp of scholars have generally interpreted it as true history, and strive to explain each detail.

Question: Is the denial of Jonah's historicity a denial of the inerrancy of Scripture?
Answer: Not necessarily. The question isn't whether or not we can trust the message of Jonah, but rather whether or not the book of Jonah is intended to be taken as true history. For example, it isn't a denial of biblical inerrancy when one says Jesus' parables are not true historical accounts. Most understand that these are simply stories intended to convey a moral message. The real question is whether Jonah is to be viewed as a parable, or as a factual account. Neither answer rejects inerrancy.

Question: Does the book of Jonah present itself as a historical, factual account?
Answer: Yes and no. The book never identifies itself as a parable or story (but again, most fictional stories do not). However, in the New Testament Jesus' stories are clearly introduced as parables. The opening words of the book of Jonah are almost identical to the opening words of the other minor prophets. Thus, there is no clear "mark" within the book that it is intended to be taken as a fictional story.

However, when compared to other historical works within the bible we do see clear differences. Esther, for example, is full of names, dates, historical facts (state wide taxation, etc), and appeal to outside historical documents (Chronicles of the Kings of Persia & Media). Jonah, by contrast, is utterly devoid of such detail--almost as if the historical and realistic detail is subdued in order to emphasize and intensify the theological detail. In terms of biblical historical works, Jonah is clearly different from the rest. If it is an historical work, it is an "odd" one.

Question: Wasn't it proven than someone could be swallowed by a whale and live?
Answer: Those scholars in the non-historical camp have argued for centuries that no human could survive in the belly of a whale. They took this as proof of the books fictional character. In the late 1800's (or early 1920's, by some accounts), a sailor of a large whaling ship was thrown overboard during the pursuit of a sperm whale and thought drowned. After harvesting the whale, its stomach was cut open the next day (in later versions of the story it was expanded to 3 days) and the group found the missing sailor---unconscious but still alive. The story has been widely repeated by a number of conservative Christian writers, including Bernard Ramm, Harry Rimmer and the creationist Henry Morris; and also in the Tyndale Old Testament Commentary on Jonah and the IVP Bible Dictionary. Sadly, it appears the story is entirely false, and was proven to be so shortly after it first emerged. (look here for a deeper study into the whale story).

However, it should be noted that the historicity of Jonah does not rely on the truth of this modern-day account. As one who believes in the miraculous, I have no problem with the whale story. In my mind, this does not suggest the story is meant to be seen as fiction.

Question: Didn't Jesus believe the story of Jonah was true and factual?
Answer: Again, we don't really know. In Matthew 12:40, Jesus said, "For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." Sadly, this doesn't really prove our case one way or the other. While this is language similar to what we use when talking about historical events, it is also language we use when speaking about literary, non-historical events. For example, if carrying a heavy load down a step incline, I might say, "I'd better be careful, or else I'll fall and break my crown just like Jack". This doesn't mean I believe the story of Jack and Jill is literally true. It may simply mean I see an analogy between the two.

Question: Haven't most Christian scholars and theologians throughout church history taken the book of Jonah as historical?
Answer: Yes. Writing against the Marcionite heretics, St. John Chrysostom stated,"For tell me, was Jonah in the whale's belly a mere appearance? Nay, thou canst not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such". The earliest commentaries seem to take Jonah at face value (though there is some evidence that at least a few of the patristic scholars took a non-literal approach). However, the patristic scholars are troubling because they interpreted the text through the grid of allegory. That is, they sought the symbolic meaning behind every literal passage. While not necessarily a denial of the literal, in application it meant discussion on the literal aspects of the texts was ignored.

Question: How should we view the book of Jonah
Answer: There seems to be four main options:
#1 - The work is entirely fictitious, though the author intended the reader to take it as history.
#2 - The work is entirely fictitious, and the author intended the reader to take it as a parable.
#3 - The work is completely historical and reliable. The events actually happened as stated.
#4 - The evidence is unclear. It could be either #2 or #3, but it wouldn't change the message.

The first is not an option for evangelical Christians. Not only does it reject the inerrancy of Scripture, I do not think it handles the evidence correctly. It is a bad conclusion based on based scholarship.

The second is indeed a valid option for Christians, but I do not think its case has been as strongly made as is sometimes claimed. The fact is there is very little evidence to suggest the book was originally meant to be taken a fiction. This option, however, is bolstered by the fact that the book doesn't seem to neatly fit into any known biblical category of written history. Also, there seems to be clear exaggerations within the text (a common and intentional feature in parabolic stories)--such as Jonah taking 3 days to walk across Ninevah (conservative explanations that the Bible really means a group of cities requires insertion of an idea not found in the text, and is frankly a bit too creative for my tastes).

The third option is also quite strong. As mentioned above, it suffers from the fact that Jonah doesn't really fit the pattern of historical narrative. It is strengthened, however, from the fact that the book begins in a virtually identical way to all the other Minor Prophets. Therefore, from the onset the book seems to present itself as factual history.

The fourth option is perhaps the preferred. I do not think this is a question that can be answered satisfactorily. However, due to the lack of clear evidence to the contrary, I personally hold to option #3. To me, the opening lines to the book "tip the scale" in favor of an historical, factual reading.

Question: Does my choice of options affect the book's meaning?
Answer: With the exception of #1 above, none of the choices affects the books message in any meaningful way. Whether one views this book as a parable intended to convey a message from God, or as God sovereignly arranging historical events to present his message, the message remains the same.

Whether parable or history, the book is pointing you towards its message. I think we should listen.