http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=69
Jonah and the "Whale"?
Skeptics frequently have railed against the allusion to a “whale” in
Matthew 12:40 in the King James Version. They have insisted that the
very idea that a person actually could be swallowed by such a creature
and survive is preposterous. Yet this charge has been shown to be
impotent for two reasons: (1) historical precedent exists for the
possibility of just such an occurrence; and (2) the text of Jonah
insists that the sea creature in question was orchestrated
supernaturally by God for the purpose intended (see Thompson, 1996,
16:86). God specifically “
prepared” (
mahnah—appointed,
constituted, made ready) a great fish (Gesenius, 1847, p. 486). The same
term is employed in the same book to refer to additional direct
manipulations initiated by God. He also
prepared a plant (4:6), a
worm (4:7), and a vehement wind (4:8) [see Wigram, 1890, p. 733].
George Cansdale was correct in concluding: “[T]here is no point in
speculating about the full physical explanation of an incident that
primarily is
metaphysical, i.e.,
miraculous” (1975, 5:925, emp. added). McClintock and Strong agree: “[T]he transaction is plainly
miraculous,
and no longer within the sphere of zoological discussion” (1881,
10:972). Jonah’s survival after being inside a sea creature is no more
remarkable than Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego surviving the “burning
fiery furnace” (Daniel 3:27).
In addition to the evidence that may be deduced for (1) the credibility of a
whale swallowing Jonah and (2) the miraculous preparation of the creature by God, a third clarification is in order that pertains to
translation. The actual text of the book of Jonah states that “the Lord had prepared a great
fish to swallow Jonah” (Jonah 1:17). The Hebrew term (
dahg) that underlies the English translation “fish” (1:17; 2:1,10) is a
broad
term that “always has the collective meaning ‘fish’ ” (Botterweck,
1978, 3:135). William Gesenius, whose lexicographical labors in the
Hebrew language were without peer, defined
dahg merely as “fish” (p. 189). Eminent Hebrew scholar, C.F. Keil, insisted strongly that “[t]he great fish,
which is not more precisely defined,
was not a whale” (Keil and Delitzsch, 1977, 10:398, emp. added). We
conclude, therefore, that the word used in the book of Jonah to refer to
the sea creature that swallowed Jonah, refers indiscriminately to
any type of fish—without
regard for the technical taxonomic, classification schemes developed by
the scientific community in the last few centuries. It has the same
generic latitude that inheres in the English word “fish” has, which can
refer to any number of cold-blooded aquatic vertebrates—from a trout,
bass, or crappie to sharks, rays, jellyfish, and crayfish (
American Heritage Dictionary, 2000, p. 665).
However, a point of clarification needs to be sounded even here.
According to the present zoological nomenclature, a “whale” is not a
“fish”—it is classified as a
mammal. Hebrew linguistic experts note no such distinction in the terms used in the Old Testament. The ordinary term for “fish” (
dahg) would not necessarily
exclude the whale in its application.
The Hebrew uses three additional terms that are germane to this discussion. Two of the words are closely interrelated:
tan-neem and
tan-neen.
The first term generally is translated (though erroneously) as “dragon”
in the KJV. Newer translations typically use “jackal,” except in
Ezekiel 29:3 and 32:2, where the creature’s habitat is obviously
aquatic, so “monster” generally is employed (Day, 1939, 2:873). The
second term is treated more loosely in the KJV,
and variously translated as “whales” (Genesis 1:21; Job 7:12),
“serpent,” archaic for “snake” (Exodus 7:9,10), “dragon” (Jeremiah
51:34), and “sea monsters” (Lamentations 4:3). The third relevant term
is “leviathan”—a transliteration of the Hebrew term
liv-yah-thahn
(Job 41:1; 104:26; Isaiah 27:1). This “very large aquatic creature”
(Gesenius, p. 433) was unquestionably a now-extinct, dinosaur-like
reptile that once inhabited the oceans (Lyons, 2001). Whereas the term
“leviathan” undoubtedly refers to a specific type of animal, the
previous two terms (
tan-neem and
tan-neen) are generic and nonspecific like
dahg. [Interestingly, Isaiah 27:1 refers to leviathan as both a “snake” (
nah-ghahsh) and a “monster,” or “reptile” (NKJV) (
tah-neen)].
What is particularly noteworthy is the fact that on the fifth day of
Creation, God created sea life. He used two terms to specify these
inhabitants of the “waters.” The first was “souls” (Genesis
1:20,21b)—the ordinary term for living “things,” or “creatures” (
nephesh). The second was “sea-monsters” (Genesis 1:21a)—the plural of
tan-neen (
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, 1967/77, p. 2). This latter term is important for understanding the
generic
nature of the Hebrew language in its reference to the animal occupants
of the sea. The word is translated erroneously as “whales” in the KJV.
The NKJV has “sea creatures,” the ASV, NASB, RSV, and NEB have “sea
monsters,” while the NIV
has “creatures of the sea.” These latter three renderings are accurate
representations of the Hebrew. They illustrate the in-built ambiguity
that characterizes the Hebrew designations of animal species in the Old
Testament. [NOTE: The term translated “birds”
(Genesis 1:20,21, 22,26,28,30) doubtless possesses the same latitude and
indiscriminate flexibility in meaning, thereby designating any creature
that has the capability of flight, including mammals (e.g., bats),
insects, and reptiles (e.g., pterodactyl).]
Moving to New Testament Greek, and the verse under discussion in this
article (Matthew 12:40), did Christ refer to the great fish of Jonah as a
“
whale”? Matthew records that Jesus employed the Greek term
ketos
to refer to Jonah’s sea creature. The Septuagint translators used the
same term in their rendering of Jonah 1:17. 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. Renowned Bible commentator Albert Barnes
insisted: “It is well known that the Greek word translated as
whale,
in the New Testament, does not of necessity mean a whale, but may
denote a large fish or sea-monster of any kind” (1949, 1:134, italics in
orig.). He speculated that the creature was a species of shark.
McClintock and Strong elaborated further by noting that the term “is not
restricted in its meaning to ‘a whale,’ or any cetacean; ...it may
denote any sea-monster, either ‘a whale,’ or ‘a shark,’ or a ‘seal,’ or
‘a tunny of enormous size’ ” (10:973). Respected Bible scholar J.W.
McGarvey wrote: “The Greek word here translated whale is ‘sea monster’ ”
(n.d., p. 306). Lenski also preferred the rendering “sea monster,”
stating that “[t]he ‘whale’ of our versions is
only an effort at translation” (1961, 1:493, emp. added).
The
versionary evidence is surely confusing to the average English reader of the New Testament. The KJV, ASV, and RSV all render
ketos
in Matthew 12:40 as “whale.” Their rationale behind this unjustifiable
linguistic decision, which Lewis maintains has created “an unnecessary
problem” (1976, 2:178-179), remains a mystery. Ironically, all three
versions translate Jonah 1:17 as “fish.” On the other hand, the NASB,
NEB, and REB
all have “sea monster” in Matthew 12:40. Three translations that
handled the matter in a comparable fashion to each other include the GNB
(“big fish”), the NIV (“huge fish”), and the NKJV (“great fish”). It
also should be noted that, as a matter of fact, the generic word in
Greek for “fish” is
ichthus—not
ketos. The latter term varies from the former in that
ketos refers generically to a
sea monster, or perhaps, a
huge fish (cf. Vine, 1952, p. 209).
What conclusion is to be drawn from these linguistic data? Both the
Hebrew and Greek languages lacked the precision to identify with
specificity the identity of the creature that swallowed Jonah. As Earl
S. Kalland affirmed, “[t]he identity or biological classification of
this great water monster is unknown” (1980, 1:401). Both
dahg and
ketos “designate sea creatures of undefined species” (Lewis, 2:178).
REFERENCES
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (2000), (Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin), fourth edition.
Arndt, W.F. and F.W. Gingrich (1957
), A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press).
Barnes, Albert (1949 reprint),
Notes on the New Testament: Matthew and Mark (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1967/77), (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung).
Botterweck, G. Johannes and Helmer Ringgren (1978),
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Cansdale, George S. (1975),
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Day, Alfred Ely (1939), “Dragon,”
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, James Orr, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974 reprint).
Gesenius, William (1847),
Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979 reprint).
Kalland, Earl S. (1980), “
dag,
daga,”
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, ed. R. Laird Harris, Gleason Archer Jr., and Bruce Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch (1977 reprint),
Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Lenski, R.C.H. (1961),
The Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg).
Lewis, Jack P. (1976),
The Gospel According to Matthew (Austin, TX: Sweet).
Lyons, Eric (2001), “Behemoth and Leviathan—Creatures of Controversy,”
Reason and Revelation, 21:1-7, January.
McGarvey, J.W. (n.d.),
The Fourfold Gospel (Cincinnati, OH: Standard).
McClintock, John and James Strong (1881),
Cyclopaedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1970 reprint).
Newman, Barclay M. Jr. (1971),
A Concise Greek-English Dictionary of the New Testament (London: United Bible Societies).
Thayer, Joseph H. (1901),
A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1977 reprint).
Thompson, Bert (1996), “Jonah, Jesus, and Anti-supernaturalism,”
Reason and Revelation, 16:86, November.
Vine, W.E. (1952),
An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, NJ: Revell).
Wigram, George W. (1890),
The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1980 reprint).
The
gospel accounts paint a picture of the character of Jesus unrivaled by
any other personality in human history. On one memorable occasion, Jesus
was invited to eat with a Pharisee named Simon (Luke 7:36-50). During
his stay, a woman who was known in the area for her sinful lifestyle
approached Jesus. She proceeded to wash His feet with her tears, dry
them with her hair, and anoint Jesus with fragrant oil.
Churches
of Christ (Romans 16:16) have long been demonized for their insistence
that all peoples are required to render obedience to the God of heaven,
and that this obedience means that people must not tamper with God’s
Word by inventing new churches, doctrines, creeds, and religions. They
have insisted that the Bible depicts for humanity the religion of God,
i.e., New Testament Christianity. Catholicism, Protestant
denominationalism, and the plethora of manmade churches that have sprung
up over the centuries are departures from “the faith” (1 Timothy 4:1).
They have maintained that it is possible—and necessary—for a person to
go back behind all denominational creeds and affiliations, and to be
simply a New Testament Christian, a member of the New Testament church.
