Did Noah go to Ninevah in the Belly of a Whale?

Great Debates
81

I definitely agree that the Greek means that the animals as well as the humans are to be clothed in sackcloth. But I’m not convinced that both nouns are intended to be the subject of “ἀνεβόησαν”, “let them cry out”. I think the more plausible and natural interpretation is that it’s the humans who are specifically enjoined to engage in acts of repentance, and the sackcloth trappings for the animals are just another symbol of the human repentance.

It’s not that I think the Bible has to be taken literally or can’t be unrealistic in its portrayal of animals. Rather, I think that the intended audience for this story would have found it rather silly that a king was exhorting the domestic animals to repent, and that that silliness would have detracted from the intended seriousness and impressiveness of what is meant to be a pretty serious story about righteousness and human submission to divine will.
Oh, and I gotta say:

:eek: Dude, you seriously misspelled “Oh you’re right, sorry about that, silly mistake on my part.”

I mean, you’re the one who assertively insisted on the accuracy of your “animals in both sackcloth and ashes” claim, even after being corrected the first time. To brush the correction off dismissively with an irritable expletive when it finally dawns on you that you did in fact slightly misrepresent that minor detail does not come across as gracious, to say the least.

82

That’s Diogenes for you. It’s part of his debating style.

A measure of disagreement – even vehement disagreement – is understandable. More reasonable debaters, however, know how to graciously acknowledge their errors or recognize weaknesses in their stances. Sadly, not everyone behaves that way, and that only tends to obscure meaningful discussion.

83

You guys want me to translate something for you? I’m a professional Hebrew-to-English translator, and I have a Tanakh on the bookshelf by my computer. I’ll even waive my usual fee.

84

Jonah 3:5-10.

Are the animals told to “cry out” along with the people?

85

Just offhand, I’d say that that the animals were included, so yes.

The story is decidely silly as a literal account of something that was supposed to have happened. As a different genre than a literal historical narrative it is quite respectable.

My own take on the “covered with ashes” slip-up is that it is a rather trivial point. Wearing sackcloth is a deliberately chosen or consciously compelled signal that repentance is needed. An animal (obviously) can neither offer to display nor consent to display repentance. If sackcloth is placed on an animal it will be either indifferent to the action or puzzled by the novelty of it, and perhaps also mildly uncomfortable. “Repentance” is a kind of concept I am reasonably confident that no non-human species on earth has ever been able to absorb. And even if an animal could get its mind around the concept, it still would make no sense to have any animals join in the human sin repentance fest. The central points here all hold.

That’s all the outcry I have on this particular subject. :slight_smile:

86

Just to give you all something to argue about until Alessan gets back to you, here is my translation of Jonah 3:5-10 from the Hebrew. I want to state that I am a student, not a professional, and that his will be better. (I actually had to translate this for a class and this is off an old test.)

5 And the men of Nineveh believed in God, and they called a fast and they wore sacks, from the big unto the small of them.
6 And the word reached to the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he put of his cloak from upon him, and he covered [himself] in sackcloth, and he sat upon the ashes.
7 And he had a proclamation made and he said in Nineveh: from the decree of the king and his great ones, the men and the animals, the cattle and the sheep, let them not taste any thing, let them not graze and water let them not drink.
8 And let them be covered in sackcloths, the men and the beasts, and they call to God. With strength let them turn, each from their way of evil and from the wrong that is in their palms
9 Who knows [if?] God will return and be sorry and will turn from His fierce anger so that we will not perish.
10 And God saw that they turned from their ways of evil. And God repented of [lit. upon] the evil that he said to do to them, and he did not do [it].

87

It could of course be argued that animals don’t have palms, and thus could not be expected to turn from evil. It should also be pointed out that in Biblical Hebrew the word translated in v. 8 as “each” is the word for “man”.

88

Thanks for the input, MerryMagdalen. That is interesting indeed. With the nuances that you pointed out, it’s easy to see why different translators chose to render this text differently.

Ultimately though, I don’t think that it matters much what the strictly literal rendering of this passage should be. As I stated earlier, the most literal translation of a text is not always the most reasonable one. As Kimstu correctly pointed out, Dio’s rendering would be completely out of place in a text as solemn as this. Besides, even in English, educated people still use pronouns in grammatically ambiguous ways, relying on the reader to correctly discern what their antecedents should be. In this case, unless the readers of The Book of Jonah were complete idiots, they would have correctly surmised that animals cannot repent or cry out, and that these injunctions were not meant to apply to them – regardless of what the strictly literal phrasing may be.

FTR, I do agree that it was foolish to dress the animals up in sackcloth. As I’ve emphasized before, that was the overly zealous action of a pagan king, not something that either Yahweh or Jonah had endorsed. The action itself was overkill – foolish, even – but this says nothing about either God or his prophet.

Diogenes insists that Jonah must have heartily approved of this action. And why? Because the Bible doesn’t say that he didn’t. Obviously though, this is a mere argument from silence, not a scholarly interpretation. It is therefore foolish to adamantly insist that Jonah must have approved of this foolhardy action.

So why didn’t this book record Jonah’s disapproval? Why didn’t it say, “And Jonah expressed displeasure that the king chose to dress the animals up in sackcloth” or words to that effect? For one thing, it would have been an unnecessary digression from the narrative, and it would have undermined the emotional impact of Ninevah’s citywide repentance. More importantly though, the Scriptures DO record Jonah’s reaction! The book candidly admits that Jonah was upset and disappointed that the Ninevites – his enemies – had chosen to repent! As such, his reaction would not have been to take the king to task for involving the animals in the rites of repentance. Rather, he was filled with disappointment that the people repented at all!

So we’ve seen that the criticisms leveled thus far have based on error after error after error. The only criticism that might hold water is the claim that, in a strictly literal translation, the animals were commanded to repent and cry out. Even if we grant that particular translation though, there are multiple reasons to reject that as the intended meaning, and only the most petty of critics would insist on adopting the most literal translation possible at the expense of all other considerations.

89

Yes, the next part is that Jonah gets angry at God for making him look stupid, and goes and sits outside the town, and God brings up a plant and then kills it.

I’m really not trying to get in the middle of your argument; I’m just kind of happy that my obscure major has come in handy.

90

I wouldn’t say that Jonah was angry at God for making him “look stupid,” but that’s ultimately a minor point. You’re right; that was the passage which described Jonah’s account. It perfectly explains why Jonah was not recorded as having endorsed or criticized the manner in which the Ninevite king repented. Quite frankly, he didn’t want them to repent at all!

That’s why it’s foolish to treat the king’s overzealous reaction as though it were endorsed by either God or Jonah. There is simply no reason to treat it that way. His foolish actions say nothing about either God or his chosen prophet.

91

Grey whale spotted off the coast of Israel.

The literal story doesn’t look so farfetched now, does it?

Answer: Yes, yes it does.

92

The point is that the “bible thumpers” who insist on taking all of the book literally are not representative of Christians at all. Biblical literalism is, essentially, a heresy that has only taken root in the last century or so amongst certain Christians in the USA (very few, if any, of whom have died for their faith). For most of the history of Christianity (including the periods when some Christians actually did die for their faith), anyone who knew enough to actually know what was in the Bible (beyond the basic gospel stories, and a few psalms) was well aware that much of it was not best understood as literal historical fact.

93

Strange you should mention that. The Holy Spirit spoke to me also. It said that this whole “Christianity” thing was a viral marketing campaign that got out of hand and that nobody should take it seriously anymore, as the product it was intended to promote (some kind of stove cleaner, I think; the Divine Being has not privileged my mortal mind with clarity upon this point) was discontinued in 224 A.D.

What now? Obviously you would be ill-advised to disbelieve me, since I speak only under the command of God. I can only assume that you will give me the same credence you expect for yourself.