Talk:Jonah

Jonah and Cassandra

This section was a separate article but its content may be unencyclopedic and / or contain original research.--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 20:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The {} sign/s

The sign/s: {{NPOV}}{{expansion}}{{Cleanup}} placed on this page without any discussion, explanation or reasoning have been removed pending further discussion. (The category Category:Bible stories is now up for a vote for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Bible stories) Thank you. IZAK 08:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Story of Jonah time shifting

Any thought on changing the first paragraph to the PAST tense? Since, after all, this is all several millennia past?! Grumpily yours, Mashford 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it maybe narrative tense? Not sure what the standards are for this...

--Tmargheim 02:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonah and Jason

On the recent unsigned but very comprehensive additions:

1. Thank you for taking the time to write so much and in such detail, but I feel some changes are in order.
2. This article is now more about Jason than it is about Jonah. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is about "balance." I suppose articles must pass through unbalanced states on the road to balance, but this seems a rather extreme case. Think about how a school-kid with no knowledge of Jonah would be mislead by this.
3. I don't consider myself an expert in this, but I know enough (eg., I did three years of graduate school in Greek and, among other things, TAed Greek mythology courses) to know this is not a wide-spread notion. Academic references are in order.

At a minimum, can we (1) put this under a subhead, (2) make it clearer that this is a speculative theory and (3) add references? Lectiodifficilior 16:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and sign-in or sign up. I'm sure we'd all like to "meet" you. Lectiodifficilior 16:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

In fact, if references can't be found, I'm afraid it will have to be removed as original research. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:20, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As mentioned on Jayjg's talk page, the idea is not new. But it isn't widely shared either, and since the article is online, I don't really see the point of going into such depth. Any last thoughts/defence before I cut it down to a paragraph? Lectiodifficilior 09:37, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

No objections from me. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:35, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

2 OT figures?

Nelson's Pocket Reference Bible Dictionary says of Noah: The name of 2 persons in the OT, one of whom is the central figure in the Book of Jonah. Who, I wonder, is the other? Andrewa 10:41, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Assuming you meant "Jonah" instead of "Noah," Nelson is probably treating the two references to Jonah ben-Amittai as different people. This is a common critical view as the reign of Jeroboam would have placed Jonah heading to Nineveh at the wrong time for it to be the capital of Assyria.

As a side note, Jonah also shows up as a name in the NT as the father of Simon Peter, though according to the New Bible Dictionary, the better reading is "John."

--Tmargheim 05:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Buddist perspective?

Is this really relavent? I mean it doesn't really have anything to do with Jonah perse, it has much more to do with Buddhist beliefs than anything.

and for that matter why's this "Jonah and Cassondra" thing here? In my opinion it doesn't add to the article at all. (Cabin Tom 02:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC))

at least quote the source and read the book of Jonah. It is actually God who caused the plant to whither (not Jonah) and it was to illustrate the destruction of 120,000 small children vs. a tiny plant. What is more important? Jonah thought the plant was more important, but God is luckily a God of mercy
I removed the section Blubberbrein2 02:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

External Links update

I have added the link to the Catholic Encyclopedia account of Jonah, a second link to the Prophet Jonah at JewishEncyclopedia, and updated the BibleGateway link to include the entire book instead of the first chapter.

Is there room to consider why God was so adamant that Jonah should go to Nineveh and preach repentance. What was the place this repentance of Nineveh played in the overall plan of Salvation of Yaweh?

The "fish"

No explanation/theory about the great fish? Surely, there ought to be some reference to the fact that this it is in all probability a symbol, not a fact - this article certainly doesn't give that impression! It reinforces what Campbell Morgan says: "Men have been looking so long at the great fish that they have failed to see the Great God of Jonah" see [1] Peter Shearan 13:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I see three possibilities here:

1. The fish was just made up as a story element

2. The fish is a symbol for something

3. Jonah was indeed swallowed by a fish and God did some kind of miracle to stop him from being sliced by the animals teeths, dissolved by its digestive tract, crushed by the depths of the sea and suffocated by the lack of oxygen.

---

The three possibilities are:

1 - A big fish or whale (of unspecified species) did indeed eat Johah

2 - A "special creation" (not any fish we know of) of God accomplished the act

3 - There was not a fish: the story is an allegory, the fish is a linguistic device in the story, the story is a vision or dream, etc

The article should reflect these options. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Do we really need such an incredibly silly section? I had something entirely dissimilar in my mind, namely:

anybody but a fool reasons about the symbolism, not the literal meaning.

I don't like my independent thinking being insulted by being served three flawed alternative to choose from. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 19:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe if the bible wrote fish, it has its reason. It might be an extinct giant fish species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.93.30 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, or it might just be a myth or legend people liked telling in olden days.METRANGOLO1 (talk) 10:57, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Jonah in Islam

I created a new short section about Jonah in Islam, because the article categorizes him as an Islamic prophet, known as Yunus, but there was no information about this subject.I am definitely not an expert on this subject, however, so it should probably be reviewed and expanded. Academic Challenger 02:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sign of Jonah

Just like there is a mention of Jonah in Islam, do you think we should make a Christian reference to the Sing of Jonah, which according to Jesus, was a prophesy of his own resurrection. It seems that it might be significant. -User:Mike Bags Like many important Bible characters, Jonah is also important in Islam as a prophet who was faithful to God and delivered His messages. In Islam, Jonah is also called Dhul-Nun (Arabic: ذو النون; meaning The One of the Whale). I have looked up Nun in the Al-Mawrid al waseet dictionnary, and "nun" النون doesn't figure at all. Whale is translated as "Hoot" or حوت. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.234.181 (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Disambig Page

Shouldn't Jonah be a disambiguation page? Other people, such as Jonah Lomu are often referred to as just Jonah.--Hamedog_Talk|^@ 11:41, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

There has been a Jonah (disambiguation) page for quite a while. If you mean you think that the main Jonah page should be the disambig page, the biblical prophet is the main meaning of "Jonah" (alone) by far. --Tysto 14:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Islam prophets?

I have nothing against Islam, I even like that prophets from Qu' Ran have their own wiki. But, Jonah is a prophet of all three abrhamistic religions (Judaism, Christianism and Islam), but throught I don't really know the importance on Jonah for the Qu' Ran, I study Jewish literature, and is one of the main books of the Talmud, thought I will suggest also putting it in "Talmud books" AND in the Islam prophets conjunciton (And something for cristians?).

Jonah's Death and Ressurection

The book of Jonah,along with the Gospels of the New Testament imply that Jonah did not actually survive being swallowed by the great fish (or whale, if you insist). In 2:2, Jonah claims to have been crying "from the belly of hell" or in some versions, the belly of sheol. It also uses a lot of imagery concerning landscapes, which would not be visible from such a particular vantage point. In the Christian Gospel, Christ makes at least two notable allusions to the possible death of Jonah. "Just as Jonah was three days in the belly of the fish, so shall the Son of Man be three days in the belly of the earth." (verse needed) "For them there shall be no sign but that of the sign of Jonah" (verse also needed) The latter of the two quotes was in regards to Christ's own ressurection when the priests were asking him to prove to be whom they accused him of claiming to be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.146.22.19 (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Sailor swallowed by whale?

I removed the following from the article moments ago:

"In the late 1920s 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 [from the digestive acid]". (Harrison, R.K. , Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1969), p. 907.)

Firstly, although that statement appears referenced, the "reference" demonstrates only that someone else has told the same story. Professor Davis of Messiah College in Grantham, PA, has concluded an impressive effort to track down Harrison's story. Davis's article shows that the story has been revived numerous times, variously being reported from the late 1800s to the early 1900s. The article makes excellent reading and inspired a cogent letter in response by Dr Bergman of NWT College in Ohio. Davis's effort, I'd suggest, shows conclusively that the story repeated by Harrison is based on an incredibly thin fabric and, to include it in the article as though it were referenced fact does a disservice to this encyclopaedia's readers. Dave 15:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I wrote about this story at the sperm whale discussion page. The alleged sailor's name was James Bartley, and the ship was "The Star of the East". Examinations of the story show that was there really was a ship with this name, however, there is No credible record of anyone named James Bartley sailing on her. The story is probably a hoax. Reference [2]204.80.61.10 20:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Sailor NOT swallowed by whale

The reference to the Davis research is used to verify that sperm whales can in fact swallow people, but the reference material concluded that the story is false and the swallowed sailor didn't even exist. The line about whales having demonstrated their ability to swallow men and the reference #23 should be removed. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.226.251 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Addition by 147.91.75.2 on 2007.02.16

Earlier today, an anonymous editor from the IP 147.91.75.2 added the following:

"However, there are some other possibilities. If one rejects or neglects the evolutionist chronology, possible candidates for the sea monster that swallowed Jonah whole could be found among the Pliosaurids, or even Mossasaurids. But one element, persistently shown in the depictions of engulfing and vomiting the prophet on the walls of Roman catacombs or on many of early Christian sarcophagi (mainly from the 3rd century), are the ears. Reptiles have (or ever had) none, so the best solution is, in fact, a whale, but an extinct one - Basilosaurus isis. This 20m (or more) long creature, whith slender body and proportionaly small head (but well capable of swallowing a human in a single bite) lived in the same area, although in much earlier time, if one accepts the evolutionist chronology. Moreover, Jonah embarked the ship at Tarshish, the very same spot on which Perseus slew the sea monster which attempted to grab Andromeda. On the earlier, pre-christian, pagan depictions of this myth, the creature is shown in the exactly same way: long-bodied, paddled, whith relativly small, elongated head and ears. And the existance of the ears on early whales is still in debate. 147.91.75.2 10:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)"

One thing I fail to understand about this reasoning is this. If someone is prepared to "reject or neglect" science, why does he need to hypothesise any specific creature from the fossil record? Why could it not be that god, or whoever was involved, just conjured something up on the spot? Maybe the "great fish" was just whatever popped into the supreme being's head at that instant instead of it having been a whale or a Mossasaurid or a Basilosaurus or anything? What kills me is that this editor appears to have no faith in the scientific age of the world but (s)he hangs everything on creatures from the very same fossil record that (s)he denies. It just doesn't add up to me. I'd like to revert it because I think it's idle speculation that adds nothing to the article but, on the other hand, I understand that reverting it may offend someone's sensibilities. To me, though, putting a bunch of stuff into an encyclopedia about what might have happened if one ignores science, well... Dave 02:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have issues with this entry as well. For one thing, its claim that reptiles have never had ears is just ridiculous. The paragraph is full of spelling and grammatical errors as well, but the larger issue is that it's an unscientific theory with no sources, so therefore it doesn't meet the encyclopedic standard. Removing it. O0drogue0o 02:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone really should talk to 147.91.75.2, at the very least to get them to stop signing their name in article space--70.107.112.158 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Fish Swallowing

Removed the previous (and unsourced) claims regarding the ability of various aquatic life to "accommodate an adult human," and replaced it with sourced material. Not trying to nitpick, but the original text seemed a little too speculative to stand sans reliable sources.

Out of curiosity, should each quote from the essay be attributed? Although they come from several different sources, the all appear in the same work. The author basically contacted various biologists and reported their observations verbatim. I wasn't sure if I should include them to provide support, or omit them to keep the article from getting too cluttered. Not sure of the conventions here.

Just to clarify- I have no problem with some mention of Peter's points- Its just that, as it stood, the paragraph basically implied the existence of an explanation in agreement with known biology. Which seems very unlikely at best, and was completely unsupported as it stood. ~~ Karma Konstable

The three possibilities are:

1 - A big fish or whale (of unspecified species) did indeed eat Johah

2 - A "special creation" (not any fish we know of) of God accomplished the act

3 - There was not a fish: the story is an allegory, the fish is a linguistic device in the story, the story is a vision or dream, etc

The article should reflect these options. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, there are lots of other options, such as for example, there was really a fish, but it didn't exactly eat Jonah, and the story is more important as an allegory, or there was really a being like a fish that ate Jonah, but the story is more important as an allegory, or there was a fish, but Jonah ate it and spewed it up alive after three days, but the story is more important as an allegory. ... said: Rursus (^mbork³) 20:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I expanded on the facts about whale sharks...John R. Beck (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC) Consider WN:NPOV. To just allow Gudgar's point of view is not viewpoint neutral. John R. Beck (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Further edits to fish article

Before making further edits, I would like put the issues before the users:

1) The paragraph claiming that the feat is possible is entirely unsourced, an seems to be in violation Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:No original research, as well as Wikipedia: POV.

Additionally, including the giant grouper, a fish wich only reaches 9 feet in length, as possibly being able to swallow a man whole, is highly speculative at best and a flight of fancy at worst, absent some sourcing for the claim. As is the reference to an unnamed, unsourced varity of "large whale shark specimen, which could be found in the Mediterranean."

At the very least language should be included to clarify that this is mearly an unsubstianciated opinion, at least untill some credible source for these claims can be made. I am editing this paragraph to reflect these problems, and removing the references to Giant Groupers and the unnamed species of whale shark- however I will leave in whale sharks as a generic claim.

2) The citation I provided was _not_ from an "atheist website". It was from a collection of essays published in 1945 (clearly before the advent of atheist websites), that happens to be _reprinted_ on an atheist website. Additionally, the quotes I provided are those of relevant authorities, rather than those of the author himself.

I'll add in the names and credentials of the quoted experts in order to clarify this, and clean up the reference in order to clarify that it is a posting of a previously published work verbatim. I realize it makes paragraph a bit cluttered, but it seems necessary to counter the unsubstantiated "according to an atheist website" non-sequitor.

I'm willing to discuss this, but it seems pretty clear to me that the sourced, previously published opinions of experts trumps unsourced speculation, even given the constraints of POV. Am I wrong?

Edited to add, I'm the one making these changes ~~ Karma Konstable

• Appears the the "Anecdotal evidence" phrase is not accurate. The following sources indicate that a whole squid much larger than a small man has been found whole in the belly of a whale. The sources are documented, and appearer reliable

  http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2294/have-any-real-life-jonahs-been-swallowed-by-whales-and-lived

  http://www.tonmo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3883

  -- User:BrianFennell 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Other records of men swallowed by whales or fish

This is excerpted from another webpage [3] I just now found, but it is quoting the Princeton Review of 1927:

There are, however, several documented accounts of people who have been swallowed by whales and large fish, and have lived to tell about it, even after several days. One species of fish, the "Sea Dog" (Carcharodon carcharias), is found in all warm seas, and can reach a length of 40 feet. In the year 1758, a sailor fell overboard from a boat in the Mediterranean and was swallowed by a sea dog. The captain of the vessel ordered a cannon on the deck to be fired at the fish, which vomited up the sailor alive and unharmed after it was struck.1

Sperm whales can swallow lumps of food eight feet in diameter. Entire skeletons of sharks up to sixteen feet in length have been found in them. In February of 1891, James Bartley, a sailor aboard the whaling ship "Star of the East," was swallowed by a whale in the vicinity of the Falkland Islands. He was within the whale for more than forty-eight hours, and after he was found inside the whale, which had been harpooned and brought aboard the whaling ship, it took him two weeks to recover from the ordeal. Sir Francis Fox wrote as follows about this:

Bartley affirms that he would probably have lived inside his house of flesh until he starved, for he lost his senses through fright and not from lack of air. He remembers the sensation of being thrown out of the boat into the sea. . . . He was then encompassed by a great darkness and he felt he was slipping along a smooth passage of some sort that seemed to move and carry him forward. The sensation lasted but a short time and then he realized he had more room. He felt about him and his hands came in contact with a yielding slimy substance that seemed to shrink from his touch. It finally dawned upon him that he had been swallowed by the whale . . . he could easily breathe; but the heat was terrible. It was not of a scorching, stifling nature, but it seemed to open the pores of his skin and draw out his vitality. . . . His skin where it was exposed to the action of the gastric juice . . . face, neck and hands were bleached to a deadly whiteness and took on the appearance of parchment . . . (and) never recovered its natural appearance . . . (though otherwise) his health did not seem affected by his terrible experience.2

Another individual, Marshall Jenkins, was swallowed by a Sperm Whale in the South Seas. The Boston Post Boy, October 14, 1771, reported that an Edgartown (U.S.A.) whaling vessel struck a whale, and that after the whale had bitten one of the boats in two, it took Jenkins in its mouth and went under the water with him. After returning to the surface, the whale vomited him on to the wreckage of the broken boat, "much bruised but not seriously injured."3

1 Ambrose John Wilson, "The Sign of the Prophet Jonah and Its Modern Confirmations," The Princeton Theological Review 25 (1927): 638. footnote 20.

2 Quoted in Ibid., p. 636.

3 Ibid., pp. 636-637.

• Here also is a secular account of the 1891 Bartley incident, that states this is in the records of the British Admiralty: http://www.ycaol.com/swallowed.htm

Til Eulenspiegel 22:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm finding opther sites that make it pretty clear that the Bartley story has been debunked as a yarn, possibly why Falwell did not mention that one alongside the 1771 and 1758 incidents... See [www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/jonah.shtml]. Even so, it seem pretty well substantiated that larger animals than humans have been found alive in whale bellies... Til Eulenspiegel 22:19, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Bartley story was discussed a bit earlier, but the rest seems reasonable- I'm going to change "It has been speculated" to read "There is some anecdotal evidence to suggest" as this seems to be a better characterization of the examples given, and append a "However" to my paragraph in order to reflect the conflict between the two. It might also be an idea to replace the whale shark with the Dog Fish, since I cant find any immediate sources that refute this claim. ~~ Karma Konstable

Sounds fair enough... BTW, I have just found here one of the most comprehensive discussions about the feasibility of the story here, [4] Note this says "I am getting conflicting science opinions on whether or not a man could survive in a sperm whale in terms of oxygen availibility and the acidity of the digestive system." Til Eulenspiegel 22:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like the Bartley paragraph fails verifiability due to an absence of reliable sources, and the conclusion looks like original research since there is no reliable source supporting the ability to live for three days like that. The paragraph either needs a couple of sources to support it or it should be removed as gossip and speculation. -- HiEv 16:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Removed the offending Bartley paragraph. 69.86.228.133 (talk) 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What is evident here is there are those who will not let the truth get out about the evidence for it goes against their world view. In other words, they could see a man gobbled up right in front of their eyes and still claim it did not happen because it would lend credence to the Bible story. Their whole aim is to disprove it, no matter the evidence that shows it to be reliable. Amazing is how they only see the big fish but miss the fact that the Bible showed there to be sea weeds that could entangle a person, that there are mountains under the ocean, that the oceans were not bottomless. All of these facts have only been documented in the last hundred or so years. Also the New Testament states, "the life of the flesh is in the blood", this is verifiable fact. If it is argued from the viewpoint that they could see that when a person bled out, that means those people back then were "doing science" they saw phenomenon made observations and came to conclusions about what they observed. By NOT accepting evidence that shows a man CAN and HAS been swallowed whole by sea creatures the editors of this article are proving an atheistic and liberal POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notoadultery1 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Balaam's donkey talked to him. Are people going to look for a talking mule?

Animals, and other wildlife in the Bible do not always act in a way that is natural and ordinary. The most obvious example is Balaam's donkey/mule/ass that was given the power to speak by God, and spoke to Balaam in a way he could understand the animal, (in the Book of Numbers, chapter 22). I certainly hope no one is going to look for a mule that talks like a human being. As others have written; Jonah was in the fish/whale/sea creature for three days. He was not eaten, digested, suffocated, or drowned. As written in the Bible, (if it were true), it would have to be a miracle, and not something that could be proven by a similar event involving sea animals. Yes the sperm whale, giant grouper, and white shark are big sea creatures that could swallow a human being, but, anyone who survived being swallowed whole, would still be dead, If they did not emerge from the animal's digestive system until 3 days later.204.80.61.133 (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Bennett Turk

Hello! WP:TALK pages are not intended for general discussion about an article topic, much less about vaguely related "other" topics, although such things can certainly be discussed on other websites. The intended purpose of this page is strictly to discuss improvements to the article, and possibly opinions or hypotheses regarding the topic of Jonah that are mentioned in published sources, not so much our own ideas on the matter. Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Jonah and Yom Kippur

In Orthodox Jewish tradition (and possibly other streams of Judaism) the book of Jonah is read every year on Yom Kippur. I think there should be some cross referencing from this article. This would also allow for a discussion of Jonah and repentance, spiritual rebirth, and perhaps could include the midrash that continues the story after the end of the book (the book concludes with 'many animals', but does not include Jonah's response to God - if there was any response. Commontater 09:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Jonah is the haftarah designated for Yom Kippur afternoon. I know the Conservative movement follows this tradition; I don't know if Reform, Reconstructionist, or non-European movements do. But I'd be surprised if they read a different selection. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

A question at daisies' level ( i.e. a very modest and naive question)

Can some of you learned gentlemen explain me why " jonah" is for you anglo-saxons synonymous to "jinx" , a meaning it does not have at all in France . For us , " jonah" means nothing , and if it evoked something ,it would rather mean " a lucky person" , knowing what Jonah harmlessly escaped ...Or must we consider him from the Phenician point of view , like " a nuisance you throw overboard ,and who comes back anyway ..."?. The french expression " porte-poisse" ( which can be translated : "pitch-bearer") would then be more accurate , and keep vivid the old wood-n'tar-navy touch . Thanks for yours explanations ... Arapaima , 08Dec2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.164.90.8 (talk) 10:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the sailors found that he was a jinx, and from their point of view, they were right - he was bringing down disaster on them and their ship. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Campbell Reference

Can someone be a bit more specific on the Campbell quote from The Hero with a Thousand Faces? I have now been through the book twice (even though I have a different ISBN for my Princeton version) specifically looking for this connection Campbell supposedly made and I can find nothing that puts Gilgamesh together with Jonah. I could make a good case for it with descent/ascent stories, but not with the worm/serpent issue (which really doesn't follow anyway). If I'm missing it, I'd like to know. If it's not there, then I see no reason to say it does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.62.36 (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

i didn't find the referance pp95 to 99

in google book. 105.101.19.6 (talk) 09:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Humor(?)

Does someone know about this link, which talks about the humor/irony present in the story? I'm unsure about how/if to include its information. —ScouterSig 18:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Any dates?

This is one of the few biblical figures in which no dates are mentioned! what time did it happen? (After Jesus, Before Jesus, After Moses, ...etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.201.252.188 (talk) 23:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It happened before or during the time of King Amaziah of Judah (because 2 Kings 14v25 refers to a prophecy of Jonah). It couldn't have happened after Jesus, because it was in the Bible long before he was born!87.246.103.137 (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Book of Jonah

Why have a separate Book_of_Jonah entry? Perhaps these should be combined? Iansocool (talk) 02:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I asked someone who has more experience (and wisdom) here at Wikipedia, and they responded on their talk page thus:

“ These are not the same topics. Jonah is a bio on en.Wikipedia, about a religious prophet. Book of Jonah is about a book, more or less "another bio," written about 2500 years ago from a biblical, Judeo/Christian outlook and translated many times. Any worries are with how these topics are handled in the en.WP articles' texts. Some overlap is bound to happen and is ok, but the pith of Jonah should be sourced commentary on the life of Jonah and its wider pull upon culture and faith, whilst the pith of Book of Jonah should be sourced commentary on the biblical/Hebrew tale itself (and its history) as a work of literature. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC) ”

(I'll also note this on the Book of Jonah talk page) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Jonah contradicts resurrection

I must ask, in what ways, does Jonah, who was swallowed by the whale for three days and three nights while STAYING ALIVE, prefigure or credit the claim that Jesus was resurrected or 'restored'? (restoration = clever wording)

In fact, this is quite the opposite. Jonah's miracle was that he stayed ALIVE! Jonah was alive when he was thrown into the sea (he even volunteered at first); Jonah was alive when the fish swallowed him; Jonah prayed in the fish's stomach (do dead people pray?); and Jonah was alive when the fish vomited him on the sea shore. So Jonah was ALIVE the ENTIRE TIME i.e. he NEVER DIED and was NEVER resurrected so I'm asking how is this biblical reference used to support the claim that Jesus was resurrected when Jonah's miracle involved staying ALIVE?

If the case of Jonah is to apply to Jesus, then Jesus COULD NOT HAVE DIED and must have NEVER DIED, that is, HE MUST HAVE STAYED ALIVE -- like Jonah. Was the miracle of Jonah not the fact that he stayed ALIVE? How is spending three days and three nights in the belly of a whale and then coming out "restoration" or a "resurrection"? Jonah never died to be resurrected!

This is something that I believe, in my opinion, discredits the entire resurrection claim because the source Matthew 12 38-40 is the words of JESUS. 10-15% of the entire Bible (out of 70 or so books) is actually in Jesus's own words (see red letter bible for eg) and all the other textual references to resurrection claim are not from Jesus's mouth.

Interesting how this reference to Jonah whose miracle was the fact that he stayed ALIVE has been used to support the resurrection claim which involves DEATH, instead of refuting it.

Also Jesus, according to your sources, died on Friday, and was raised on Sunday. How is this 3 days and 3 nights? It is 2 1/2 days! So either Jesus is lying or the claims are inconsistent. I don't think the former is very plausible. 24.84.68.252 (talk) 10:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the wording is cumbersome eventhough the sentence pretty obviously refers to the Bible text that is quoted immediately after. I've revised the wording to more clearly show that. Ckruschke (talk) 15:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Your minor edit does not respond to my question/argument. Jonah's miracle was that he stayed alive, that is, he never died. According to Christians, Jesus's miracle was that he supposedly died and was resurrected after his death. But Jesus [in Matthew 12 38-40] says that the only sign miracle) that he will give or show is that of Jonah's. The story of Jonah teaches us that he stayed alive and never died. Thus Jonah was never resurrected or "restored". In light of this, how does the reference to Jonah who stayed alive and never died support the Christian claim that Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected? Once again, the story of Jonah = never died and was always alive. the story of Jesus according to Christians = died, resurrected. So Jonah who never died, and Jesus who allegedly died = contradiction = refutes the claim of Easter. Also Jesus, according to Christians, died on the cross on Friday and was resurrected on Sunday. That is only 2 1/2 days, not 3 days and 3 nights... There are many references in the bible that support the claim that Jesus died and was resurrected HOWEVER these references are NOT FROM JESUS HIMSELF. Matthew 12 38-40 is Jesus's OWN WORDS so it is very important to take this into consideration! For one, notice he refers to himself as 'SON OF MAN' (and not Son of God). Son of Man appears in Bible over 70 times whereas Son of God occurs less than 20 times. And the ONLY TIME JESUS MAKES A REFERENCE TO ANY OF THESE TWO TERMS IS WHEN HE CALLS HIMSELF SON OF MAN (Matthew 12:38-40). This is the BIG FISH THAT GOT AWAY and somehow, quite cleverly, as evidenced on wikipedia, this biblical reference to Jonah BY Jesus himself is being used to support the resurrection claim when it actually contradicts it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Your point seems to be that Jesus' "ONLY" sign that He was going to die and be resurrected was to reference the story of Jonah. I don't know where you are getting this, but it is in fact not true. Jesus says in many other verses in the Bible that this will happen. Sprinkled in many places throughout the Gospels - too many in fact to cite here. Go to Blue Letter Bible or any other Christian website and do a search - you'll find many. If you are interested, instead of merely trying to prove a point, send me a talk message and I can point you in a more specific direction. Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

No such distinction in antiquity ?

The article contains an inaccurate parenthetical claim in the "Translation" section:

"(whales are today classified as mammals and not fish, but no such distinction was made in antiquity)"

It should read "but such a distinction was seldom made in antiquity", since the Greek philosopher Aristotle actually did make the distinction.

Among many sources:

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/03/science/how-the-whale-lost-its-legs-and-returned-to-the-sea.html

The same section of the article states: "At some point cetus became synonymous with "whale" (the study of whales is now called cetology)."

That point was in Book I, Section 6 of Aristotle's "History of Animals": "Very extensive genera of animals, into which other subdivisions fall, are the following: one, of birds; one, of fishes; and another, of cetaceans." Aristotle uses the term translated as "cetaceans" to include whales, dolphins and porpoises.

Isaac Asimov, in his 1965 book "The Greeks: A Great Adventure", writes, "[Aristotle] was particularly interested in sea life and observed that the dolphin [and other cetaceans] brought forth its young alive and in a manner similar to those of the beasts of the field. For this reason he decided dolphins were not fish, and here he was fully 2000 years ahead of his time." [p. 211]

As a first time unsigned contributor to Wikipedia, I won't presume to edit the article myself, but someone should.

70.131.100.150 (talk) 10:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Michelangelo's Tarpon

IN OCTOBER 2011, I walked into the Sistine Chapel for the second time in twenty years, and looking above the altar I was astounded to see a tarpon peering out from behind Jonah’s left leg. The tarpon (Megalops atlanticus) is one of my favorite light-tackle sport fish, because it readily takes flies and is a spectacular fighter.

Many questions came to mind, because this fresco, painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by Michelangelo around 1510, is probably the earliest accurate depiction of an Atlantic tarpon. I was not the first to notice this historically significant representation. Others have speculated as to what kind of fish (or whale) Michelangelo had painted next to Noah, and whether this was the fish that might have swallowed the prophet. I tried to answer most of the questions for myself and conjecture on the facts, and I share the results here:

What is the earliest written record of the tarpon? Portuguese explorers sailing south in caravels reached Senegal and Cape Verde Peninsula (15 deg. north) in 1444. This should be the earliest recorded date that western Europeans would have encountered the tarpon in their home range. Some African tarpon may have strayed north past Cape Boujdour (26 deg. north) prior to the 16th century. Currently the Eastern Atlantic waters in that region are inhospitably cold to tarpon.

What is the earliest piscatorial pictorial of a tarpon? (Probably Michelangelo!) Ascanio Condivi, a pupil and assistant to Michelangelo, recorded that the artist had gone to a market to draw fish scales, a feature not present in some of the engravings of fish. The interesting thing is that Michelangelo’s tarpon looks so large and so realistic. The painter must have had an accurate drawing or seen a tarpon himself. However, a tarpon carcass of that size would have rotted away in the trip from Senegal to Italy, or if Columbus had brought a western Atlantic tarpon back a few years before, it would have been at best a dried specimen. So where did Michelangelo get his subject tarpon?

What was the historical range (500 years ago) of the tarpon? The West Atlantic range is from 5 deg. south to 35 deg. north. The East Atlantic range is from 5 deg. south to 15 deg. north. Tarpon have been reported in Ireland and northwestern Europe, apparently riding the warm waters of the Gulf Stream through the North Atlantic. The Straits of Gibraltar are at 36 degrees north, but tarpon have never been reported in the Eastern Atlantic between 26 and 50 degrees north. We can conclude that tarpon have not strayed into the waters of the Mediterranean during recent times. The East and West Atlantic tarpon are the same species. The West Atlantic tarpon populations have more genetic variation than the East Atlantic with the tarpon in eastern Brazil being genetically closest to the African tarpon. We do not have sufficient genetic information to determine when the east Atlantic populations diverged from the western Atlantic populations. The closest relative of the tarpon is the oxeye, or Indo-Pacific tarpon (Megalops cyprinoides) which grows to about 40 pounds in weight and is found in the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean including the Arabian Sea. This fish which looks identical to the Atlantic tarpon would have been well known to the Persians from the 13th century.

How did the fishermen circa 1500 catch tarpon of the size depicted in Michelangelo’s painting? Judging from the relative size of the figure of Jonah, and taking into account the foreshortening, the tarpon appears to be over 150 pounds. Photogrammetric measurements could be made to more accurately judge the size of this tarpon, but it was huge. Maybe Michelangelo worked from smaller specimens and relied on stories told of the great size some of the tarpon seen free-jumping south of Cape Verde and the Caribbean. As far as we know, the sport of catching tarpon with fishing rods and reels did not become popular until the latter part of the 19th century.

Some Historical Background:

Being a student of the physical world, I have always thought that one of the best ways to understand and learn many of the technical developments over the ages is to approach the subject from a chronological viewpoint. I think that the human brain gets a better grasp of the subject if the information is presented in the same sequence that these developments were discovered historically. Here is some information that you might find interesting—or that may even lead you to your own conclusions about Michelangelo’s tarpon:

1. Remains of a 2nd-century Roman shipwreck showed signs of an ancient pumping system designed to suck sea water into a tank. This has led to speculation that the ancient Romans might have traded live fish across the Mediterranean Sea by fitting their ships with ingenious hydraulic systems, which consisted of a pumping system designed to suck the sea water into a fish tank through a lead pipe inserted in the hull near the keel. Recovered in pieces from the Adriatic Sea in 1999, the ship was carrying a cargo of fish when it sank six miles off the coast of Grado in northeastern Italy.

2. In northern waters the longship was developed over a period of centuries and perfected by its most famous user, the Vikings, in approximately the 9th century. These ships were clinker-built, utilizing overlapping wooden strakes and were primarily used to transport trading goods and supplies across the Baltic and North Atlantic. The Vikings also developed the cog (or cog-built vessels), which are a type of ship that first appeared in the 10th century, and were widely used from around the 12th century on. Cogs were generally built of oak, which was an abundant timber in the Baltic region of Prussia. These vessels were fitted with a single mast and a square-rigged single sail and were mostly associated with seagoing trade in medieval Europe, especially the Hanseatic League, particularly in the Baltic Sea region.

3. Until the 14th century, the lateen (“Latin”) sail was employed primarily on the Mediterranean Sea, while Atlantic, Baltic and Indian Ocean vessels relied on square-rigged sails. The Northern European adoption of the specialized lateen sail in the Late Middle Ages was and was one of the technological developments in shipbuilding that made ships more maneuverable into the wind. This enabled exploreers and merchants to sail out of the Mediterranean and into the Southern Atlantic Ocean despite the prevailing onshore winds.

4. The Portuguese generally began their extended explorations of the Western Atlantic coastline at the end of the Western European bubonic plague in 1350. The medieval warm period ended at the beginning of the 14th century with the onset of the Little Ice Age, and subsequent rains during the great famine of 1315 – 1317 decimated rural populations. When the plague came to Southwest Europe in 1349 so many more rural workers died that farming was no longer a viable way of life. The result was that most of the people remaining migrated toward the coasts where they could live off the sea.

5. The carrack, or nau, was a three or four-masted sailing ship developed by merging the Norse clinker built hull technology with the lateen sail of the Mediterranean in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These types of ships were invented in Iberia, from which they were first sailed by the kingdoms of Portugal and Spain in the early trans-oceanic voyages of the Age of Exploration. Their invention is generally credited to the Portuguese people, who were the first western Europeans to explore the Atlantic south along the coast of Africa searching for a trade route to the Far East in order to avoid the costly middlemen of the Eastern Mediterranean civilizations who sat upon the routes of the slave and spice trade. Spices in that era were expensive luxuries and were also used medicinally.

6. Even to this day in the Old Port or Vieux-Port of Marseilles, France, the fishmongers sell their fish live from high sided tables with fresh sea water being constantly circulating seawater. Besides the bottom fish like sea bass, gurnards, whiting, flounder and porgys, they also had live mackerel and small bonito. Of course the fishing boats had large live wells to keep their catch alive, therefore, this could be a very old traditional way of bringing their catch fresh to market.

Norman’s Speculations:

When the Portuguese sailors went down the west coast of Africa, they would have used their considerable fishing skills to catch a large portion of their diet. The fishing methods of that era were hand lines and nets; when they entered regions that were inhabited by tarpon they would have caught the smaller specimens by hook-and-line or nets. Tarpon free-jump frequently, however, and when a tarpon is hooked they jump, greyhound and put up spectacular aerial displays. The fishing methods used at that time were crude when compared to modern day methods, and it would have been difficult to catch anything larger than 50 pounds. Larger tarpon would have torn up their fishing gear.

In the days prior to refrigeration, food would rot in a very short time, especially in warm climates without salting. I suspect that many of the ships in that era would have had fish tanks to keep the smaller fish alive and fresh to eat. If so, smaller tarpon could have been brought back to Iberia without rotting, not only by the Portuguese but also by Columbus prior to 1500. The sailors would have told fantastic tales, of fish that jumped to the skies and were large enough to swallow a man.

In the Old Testament Jonah appears in 2 Kings as a prophet, and in a storm he is thrown overboard and calmed the seas, only to be swallowed by a fish prepared by God. In the Qur’an, chapter 37-142, Jonah is also swallowed by a fish. In the New Testament, Matthew, ch.12 vs. 39-41, Jonah is swallowed by a whale—apparently the result of differing translations. Therefore, Michelangelo may have been looking for a fish instead of a whale for his fresco of Jonah. If, down at the seaside fish markets, he heard the sailors’ tales of this giant fish that could swallow a man and leapt to the heavens, he may have sought out a specimen to sketch and paint in his famous fresco.

Fishing for and catching large tarpon on sport-fishing tackle is a very exciting and visceral emotional experience, some people get weak kneed with buck fever when they confront these large silvery fish coming their way. The story of Jonah is an ancient one based on confronting beliefs and fears, the tarpon was chosen by different cultures and traditions to represent this great fish that swallowed the prophet. These images and lessons represent the spirituality that we all share with ages past. Nedun (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

You know this isn't a discussion forum - right? So do you have a suggested edit somewhere in your long, largely WP:OR thread above...? If you do, you'd need actual citations rather than "this is what I think". Ckruschke (talk) 17:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

Jonah's Tomb has been destroyed

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2685923/Shocking-moment-ISIS-militants-sledgehammers-Mosul-tomb-Prophet-Jonah-50-blindfolded-bodies-massacred-south-Baghdad.html

--Rarian rakista (talk) 18:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait until the quality papers start reporting this please. The Daily Mail is a tabloid and it may have this wrong. Probably not, but if it's true there will be better sources with maybe more detail. Dougweller (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

As we can see here:[5] the tomb seems safe and this was a fake. More at [6]. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

It's being reported worldwide now, with videos. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/24/world/iraq-violence/68.45.176.237 (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It's conclusive. There are videos of the peaceful religion destroying Jonahs Tomb. Obviously, they need the space to build something better. Space is scarce in Jihad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.183.17.191 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Jonah

Cyberbot II has detected links on Jonah which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.bible-history.com/texts/layard/discoveries_at_nineveh_intro.html

  Triggered by \bbible\-history\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Jonah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070927230239/http://www.liberty.edu/wwwadmin/includes/search/qanda/QandA_Results_elmertowns.cfm?Searched=&AID=274&DisplayResults=1 to http://www.liberty.edu/wwwadmin/includes/search/qanda/QandA_Results_elmertowns.cfm?Searched=&AID=274&DisplayResults=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

Hello! I am fairly new to the Wikipedia community so I still have a lot of questions. I was wondering how the infobox template was decided on for this article. I have noticed that many biblical figures do not have infoboxes. For instance, I was going to add an infobox to Job (biblical figure) but was not sure which template to use. I see that the saint template is used in this article. However, at least in my experience, I usually hear Jonah referred to as simply a Bible character and not necessarily a saint. I was curious to know if there are specific guidelines for infoboxes in biblical figures' articles. Thanks! Rimmel.Edits Talk 14:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jonah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://https//www.studylight.org/commentary/matthew/12-40.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110207180623/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n3_v44/ai_17422984/ to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0411/is_n3_v44/ai_17422984/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711062200/http://www.g-dcast.com/yomkippur to http://www.g-dcast.com/yomkippur

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025123007/http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/2011/02/10/three-day-fast-of-nineveh/ to http://syrianorthodoxchurch.org/news/2011/02/10/three-day-fast-of-nineveh/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jonah. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161012155807/http://www.thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/2016/9/29/jonah-and-the-varieties-of-religious-motivation-a-religious-educators-perspective-on-why-people-become-religious to http://www.thelehrhaus.com/timely-thoughts/2016/9/29/jonah-and-the-varieties-of-religious-motivation-a-religious-educators-perspective-on-why-people-become-religious

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:59, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright violation

@Mauro Lanari: I noticed you have just tagged this article as containing a major copyright violation. I am assuming this template is only referring to the first paragraph of the "Post-Biblical views" section. I am the editor who wrote the vast majority of this article and brought it up to GA and I know for certain that I did not copy any material from anywhere; everything I added was written entirely in my own words (except for quotes, which I was very careful to attribute to the proper sources). The first paragraph of the "Post-Biblical views" section, however, is a holdout from before I came along; I kept it because the whole paragraph appeared to be referenced to the "Syrian Orthodox Resources" website cited at the end of the paragraph, but which you seem to have broken away to a different paragraph. It is possible that that paragraph might contain a copyright violation. (If that is the case, however, then that violation apparently went completely undetected by the plagiarism checker that was used during the GA review.) If the violation is solely confined to this paragraph, I am perfectly willing to rewrite the paragraph in my own words --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Chanting of the Entire Book

In the post biblical views section, I deleted the following sentence and its citation:

• In Catholicism, the Book of Jonah is read aloud in its entirety on Maundy Thursday in a Beneventan chant.

Currently, this is untrue. As a Catholic I know this, but also a look at the Catholic lectionary and the Liturgy of the Hours confirms this. Here is an index of the Sunday Mass Readings and the Weekday Mass Readings. The original source for the statement is interesting as it implies some of the book of Jonah was read/chanted at some time on Holy Thursday. If someone wants to do more research, and expand on the historical reading of Jonah by Catholics, I would be interesting. But at the present the receding statement is untrue. Stephen Bolin^talk 18:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

large sea animals ingesting humans, who later survive ?

There is recent hartd(photographic) evidence supporting the notion that large sea animals (e.g., Bryne's whale) can and sometimes do take up a human by their mouth, and the human may survive. In reading and interpreting ancient texts, we should ask, if physically plausible events may have triggered the writing of these texts, and merely ridiculizing an ancient text as physically impossible without evidence, as currently permeated in the text, is neither scientific nor a neutral viewpoint. (Remember that classifying Homer's story of Troy as mere legend in the past was also not helpful for archeology, that later found Troy to have existed). Thus, the documented ingestion, and survival, of a diver by a whale certainly has a relevance for this text, even if a reference to this has recently be eliminated from it.

If a human can survive days within a sea animal, and the technicality, if "swallow" in an ancient language has the exactly same meaning as the modern biological definition as "passing through the esophagus" is a different question.

In the New Testament

I propose that the paragraph

"Matthew 12:41-42 and Luke 11:31–32 assert in parallel wording that Jesus is greater than Jonah and greater than Solomon."

be deleted, because it is just not justified by those texts, in which the Greek says 'something' (neuter) greater, not 'someone'.HuPi (talk) 20:19, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Fish vs whale again

In the lead:

"Although the word 'whale' is often used in English versions of the Jonah story"

In Jonah#The fish:

"Though modern readers often equate Jonah's fish with a whale"

Readers of what? The "English versions of the Jonah story" mentioned in the lead, or something else? What particular English versions of the story are being talked about, anyway?

It seems the vast majority of translations have it as a fish. My hunch is that children are often taught it as a whale as it is likely to make more sense to them, and many of these never relearn that it was a fish. Furthermore, probably my first thought when I heard this joke was: "Why wait to go to heaven? I already know the answer: It was a fish."

Whether we can say for sure that is must be a fish on the basis that whales don't have big enough throats, I say the statements I've quoted need clarification/attestation. — Smjg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Smjg: I agree the first statement is untrue; almost no English translations use the word "whale". But as for the bit about "modern readers often equate" etc, I think it's fair to say that most people who read the story, even though they read the words "great fish", are mentally thinking "whale". (The rest of that section explains how the meaning shifted, through a mistranslation of Matthew 12:40.) So I'd suggest leaving that as it is, but replacing the erroneous statement in the lead with something like "Although the creature which swallowed Jonah is often assumed to be a whale..." DanFromAnotherPlace (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah original research in one sentence

There is original research in one of the sentences.

“ The consensus of mainstream Biblical scholars holds that the contents of the Book of Jonah are entirely ahistorical.[93][94][3]”

None of the sources cited in that sentence say there is a consensus, here on Wikipedia if a source doesn’t directly say there is “a consensus”, “scholars agree on A”, or “most scholars agree on this” we don’t say there is a consensus. Yes the sources do say there is a consensus.

Some people may accuse me of being some religious POV pusher, but I’m only saying this because here on Wikipedia we are supposed to write down what sources actually say instead of combining all the details we read together to come to a conclusion.

It would be better to just rewrite that sentence to something like “mainstream biblical scholars view the book of Jonah as ahistorical.”CycoMa (talk) 20:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, the section in question is full of WP:WEASEL wording. We need to specify who exactly has a consensus or a view on these aspects of the book, not outline them in super-vague terms such as "some scholars..." or "many..." At the very least, we could identify what different schools of thought, or what different Christian traditions, believe. Elizium23 (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure the sources do indeed say that scholars don’t think it’s historical but, the issue here is that editors collected tons of sources and assumed that just because tons of scholars think it’s not historical doesn’t mean there is a consensus on the topic.

Also I think one of the sources said many that many scholars hold the view a Jonah figure existed. Although that source was from the 80s and it’s hard to tell if it still holds up.CycoMa (talk) 01:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

"Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional"

An IP removed this claim from the lead on the basis that the cited ref not only doesn't support the claim, but even contradicts it [7]. Here are quotes from the cited ref:

• There still seems to be the question whether the Biblical account is a legendary account of no person or a legendary account built on a real person [...] while Biblical scholars generally hold that Jonah did exist, the account not only of his being swallowed by a big fish but even going to Nineveh to preach or anything else that is said in the Biblical story is assumed to be substantially false.
• The scholarly consensus regards all details about Jonah in the book as legendary and not even based on a factual substratum, excepting the bare statement that he was a Hebrew prophet, which is hardly uniquely identifying.
• The cited ref also quotes from another book: 'The "hero" of this tale, the prophet Jonah son of Amittai, is a historical personage ... (but) this book is not history but fiction.'

I reverted the IP because it seems clear to me that the cited ref does support the claim that mainstream scholars regard the Book of Jonah (i.e. the Biblical story) as fictional, albeit a fictional story that may be based on a real person. Similar to how Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a fictional story based on the real person Abraham Lincoln. The lead already addresses the fact that the story may be based on a real person since the sentence that immediately follows says: "The character of Jonah son of Amittai may have been based on the historical prophet of the same name..." Bennv123 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

IP, what did you mean by "it is one authors opinion that the swallowing of the whale account etc is fictional..." [8]? You quoted the part where the cited ref says: "Biblical scholars generally hold that Jonah did exist", but conveniently leave out the rest of the sentence which says that those same Biblical scholars regard "... the account not only of his being swallowed by a big fish but even going to Nineveh to preach or anything else that is said in the Biblical story is assumed to be substantially false." Again, Jonah being a historical person does not make the Book of Jonah historical. Just as Abraham Lincoln being real does not make Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter real history. The cited ref clearly states that "Biblical scholars"/"the scholarly consensus" regard the Book of Jonah to be "legendary"/"substantially false"/"legendary and not even based on a factual substratum"/"fiction". Bennv123 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The author you cite, a philosopher, cites a Talmudic professor. These two do not make up the whole of "Mainstream Bible scholars". My ask is that you simply reword the sentence to accurately convey the writings of one Talmudic professor and one philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

The author only cites the Talmudic professor as an example in one of three quotes above. The other two quotes are about what "Biblical scholars generally hold" and "The scholarly consensus". Bennv123 (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" is written by H.L. Ginsberg, the Talmudic professor I referred to. "Biblical scholars generally hold" is Saul Kripke's, a logician and philosopher, summation of his opinion. He states before, " I chose this case because..." 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" quote is not written by Ginsberg. The sentence before that which is under quotation marks is where Kripke quotes Ginsberg ('The "hero" of this tale... (but) this book is not history but fiction.'). After the quotation marks end, it is no longer Kripke quoting Ginsberg, but rather Kripke's summation of what the scholarly consensus is. Similarly, the first quote is Kripke's summation of what "Biblical scholars generally hold". Bennv123 (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fulfills WP:RS/AC: Mathews, Jeannette (2020). Prophets as Performers: Biblical Performance Criticism and Israel's Prophets. Cascade Books. p. 195. ISBN 978-1-5326-8552-1. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I do not see where this page supports the sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" I see a reference where scholars debate the integrity of the text but nothing else that supports this sentence. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

First two lines of text from page 195 fulfill WP:RS/AC. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are incorrect, "The scholarly consensus regards all details..." is on p.114 of H.L. Ginsberg, The Five Megilloth and Jonah, from the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

This fulfills it, too: Perrotta, Kevin (2010). Jonah/Ruth (in German). Loyola Press. p. 8. ISBN 978-0-8294-3002-8. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Kevin Perrotta is a journalist, not a mainstream Bible scholar, he also does not cite his, "that most scholars today regard..." statement. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about Kripke's summation of "Biblical scholars generally hold" but again he is not a Modern Biblical scholar but a philosopher and logician. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Yet another: Gamber, Jenifer; Kimball, Lisa (2014). My Faith, My Life, Revised Edition: A Teen's Guide to the Episcopal Church. Church Publishing Incorporated. p. 23. ISBN 978-0-8192-2962-5. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

And this one: Vogt, Brandon (2022). What to Say and How to Say It, Volume III: Even More Ways to Discuss Your Faith with Clarity and Confidence. Ave Maria Press. p. 17. ISBN 978-1-64680-161-9. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are you sure? I just checked Ginsberg's book (The Five Megilloth and Jonah, from the Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969) and "The scholarly consensus regards all details..." is not on that page, or any of the surrounding pages. Only the part that Kripke puts under quotation marks is. Bennv123 (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Something more fussy: Jenson, Philip Peter (2009). Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. The Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies. Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-567-44289-5. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Consensus granted by someone who opposes the consensus: Chisholm, Robert B. Jr. (2009). Handbook on the Prophets. Baker Publishing Group. p. unpaginated. ISBN 978-1-58558-365-2. Retrieved 2023-02-10. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have this book and like this source, however it states "Modern scholarly consensus" not "Mainstream Scholarly consensus" 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I may have read the citation incorrectly. It does look like the citation is Kripke's summation of H.L. Ginsberg's p. 114. This does not change the content of "Mainstream biblical scholars" as being solely represented by these two persons. A Talmudic professor and philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again my ask is for the original sentence to be reworded to accurately convey what the author is saying, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" is not represented by the original citation. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You're either in denial, or you never took Bible classes from a mainstream university. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't need to be rude, you do not need a degree to read a citation and come to the conclusion that the citation does not support the statement. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have provided several WP:RS/AC claims and I have not exhausted my search yet. In fact, it has been the academic consensus for so long in the mainstream academia, that it is hard to remember when it wasn't (I probably wasn't born then, and I'm nearing 50). tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Again the original cited source does not support the sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional" it is the summation of a philosopher. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the content of your beliefs, but the source to state them as truth. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia does not say something is WP:THETRUTH or THEFALSE, although, yes, we apply WP:DUE. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"The scholarly consensus" quote is not "Kripke's summation of H.L. Ginsberg's p. 114." Again, it is Kripke's summation of what the general scholarly consensus is (not just Ginsberg). The Ginsberg source itself does not say anything about that. If you are saying that Kripke is not a reliable enough source on its own, then 1) are there reliable sources that contradict Kripke? and 2) perhaps tgeorgescu can add his other sources to the article. Bennv123 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It would seem by the use of H.L. Ginsberg citation that it is the summation of the Talmudic Jewish Scholar Society which is not the whole of "Mainstream Biblical scholars". 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:02, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I think you are reading the citation incorrectly again. Kripke merely quotes Ginsberg as an example of the typical scholarly view of the Book of Jonah (hence his use of "See, for example, ..." before quoting Ginsberg). After that, he is no longer quoting or summarizing what Ginsberg says on p. 114, but rather giving his own summation of the scholarly consensus of the book and his own examination on Jonah's historical existence. Bennv123 (talk) 00:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Kripke, a philosopher, is using a Talmud professor to state he believes that scholarly consensus is that Jonah is a work of fiction, however this does not support that "Mainstream Biblical Scholars" all come to this same conclusion, I just ask that the sentence is reworded to support the actual source given. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

No, you got that wrong, the WP:RULES say WP:RS/AC, you might want to read it. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Kripke is using a quote from Ginsberg as an example of what ONE scholar has said. Hence why he calls it "an example" and not the entire basis for all his claims. Again, Kripke's two quotes about what "Biblical scholars generally hold" and "the scholarly consensus" are Kripke's own summations of the general consensus, not his summation of Ginsberg. Again, if your contention is that Kripke is not a reliable source, then are there reliable sources that contradict him? Bennv123 (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there are reliable sources that contradict him. However the rebuttal sentence, "Mainstream Bible scholars generally regard the Book of Jonah as non fiction" would not be correct either. I personally believe those with educated opinions simply present information from all sides of a particular subject and let the reader come to their own conclusion. However the given source is referenced multiple times to state that "Mainstream Biblical scholars..." however the given source is not the whole of the Biblical scholar community and the reader should be allowed to come to their own conclusion without being led into believing that "Mainstream Biblical scholars" generally regard the Book of Jonah as fictional. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I have quoted a full professor from Cambridge University and a full professor from Dallas Theological Seminary, who are normally speaking at each other's guts throats, but they both agree there is a consensus, precisely as stated by Kripke. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC) Modified. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that there are reliable sources that contradict Kripke; I was asking you if there are any. WP:RS/AC does not require us to cite "the whole of the Biblical scholar community", it only requires that we cite a reliable source "that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view", which Kripke does say. Bennv123 (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Also, I note that tgeorgescu has cited two more refs in the article. I have no comment on those two sources as I've not read them. Bennv123 (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Got to go, I enjoyed our conversation, thanks for your time. 162.119.16.72 (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yup, the consensus of mainstream Bible scholars vs. most scholars vs. the consensus of modern scholars is splitting hairs. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Idea of a person being a Jonah, a pariah

In the film Master and Commander, one of the ships officers is shunned by the crew and is considered a Jonah. What is meant by this? How and when did this develop as a concept? Can a section be added to the article about it? 86.139.247.14 (talk) 07:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not Israel, being historically accurate, It's actually Palestine.

. 41.216.204.134 (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Moving "Book of Tobit" subsection.

Under the section "In Christianity" is a subsection "In the Book of Tobit." Being that the Book of Tobit was written before the time of Jesus and is known as an apocryphal Jewish work, I think this subsection should be moved to "In Judaism." I wanted to at least put there here for comment before making the change. Thanks! XZealous (talk) 09:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree as I am Christian and have never heard of "Book of Tobit".

To me it makes sense, but you should wait for someone that has been here longer to respond.

Sheriff U3 talk 04:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)