JONAS
498
JONAS
are more than a hundred and twenty thousand persons
that know not how to distinguish between their right
hand and their left, and many beasts." Apart from
the hymn ascribed to Jonas (ii, 2-11) the contents of
the book are in prose.
Historicity. — Catholics have always looked upon the Book of Jonas as a fact-narrative. In the works of some recent Catholic writers there is a leaning to regard the book as fiction. Only Simon and Jahn, among prominent Catholic scholars, have clearly denied the historicity of Jonas; and the orthodoxy of these two critics may no longer be defended : " Provi- dentissimus Deus" implicitly condemned the ideas of both in the matter of inspiration, and the Congrega- tion of the Index expressly condemned the "Intro- duction" of the latter.
Reasons for the traditional acceptance of the his- toricity of Jonas: —
I. Jewish Tradition. — According to the Septuagint text of the Book of Tobias (xiv, 4), the words of Jonas in regard to the destruction of Ninive are accepted as facts; the same reading is found in the Aramaic text and one Hebrew MS. (see Kaulen, " Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift", Freiburg ini Br., 1890, p. 352). The apocryphal III Mach., vi, 8, lists the saving of Jonas in the belly of the fish along with the other wonders of Old Testament history. Josephus (Ant. Jud., IX, X, 2) clearly deems the story of Jonas to be historical.
II. The Authority of Our Lord. — This reason is deemed by Catholics to remove all doubt as to the fact of the story of Jonas (see Knabenbauer, " Comm. in Prophetas Minores", II, 361). The Jews asked a "sign" — a miracle to prove the Messiahship of Jesus. He made answer that no " sign " would be given them other than the "sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights: so shall the Son of man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights. The men of Ninive shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold a greater than Jonas here" (Matt., xii, 40-1; xvi, 4; Luke, xi, 20-32). The Jews asked for a real miracle; Christ would have deceived them had He presented a mere fancy. He argues clearly that just as Jonas was in the whale's belly three days and three nights even so He will be in the heart of the earth three daj-s and three nights. If, then, the stay of Jonas in the belly of the fish be only a fiction, the stay of Christ's body in the heart of the earth is only a fiction. If the men of Ninive will really not rise in judgment, neither will the Jews really rise. Christ contrasts fact with fact, not fancy with fancy nor fancy with fact. It would be very strange, indeed, were He to say that He was greater than a mere fancy-formed man. It would be little less strange were he to berate the Jews for their real lack of penance by rating this lack in contrast with the penance of Ninive which never existed at all. The whole force of these striking contrasts is lost, if we admit that the story of Jonas is not fact-narrative. Finally, Christ makes no distinction between the story of the Queen of Sheba and that of Jonas (see Matt., xii, 42). He sets the very same historical value upon the Book of Jonas as upon the Third Book of Kings. Such is the very strongest argument that Catholics offer for the firm stand they take upon the ground of the fact-narrative of the slory of Jonas.
III. The Authoriti/ of the Fathers. — Not a single Father has ever been cited in favour of the opinion that Jonas is a fancy-tale and no fact-narrative at all. To the Fathers Jonas was a fact and a t>'pe of the Messias, just such a one as (Christ presented to the Jews. Saints Jerome, Cyril, and Theophilus explain in detail the type-meaning of the facts of the Book of Jonas. St. Cyril even forestalls the objections of the RationaUsts of to-day: Jonas flees his ministry, be-
wails God's mercy to the Ninivites, and in other ways
shows a spirit that ill becomes a Prophet and an
historical type of Christ. Cyril admits that iu all this
Jonas failed and is not a type of Christ, but does not
admit that these failures of Jonas prove the story of
his doings to have been a mere fiction.
To the Rationalist and to the advanced Protestant Biblical scholar these arguments are of no worth whatsoever. They find error not only in Jewish and Christian tradition but in Christ Himself. They ad- mit that Christ took the story of Jonas as a fact^narra- tive, and make answer that Christ erred; He was a child of His time and represents to us the ideas and errors of His time. The arguments of those who ac- cept the inerrancy of Christ and deny the historicity of Jonas are not conclusive. 1°. Christ spoke according to the ideas of the people, and had no purpose in telhng them that Jonas was really not swallowed by the fish. We ask: Did Christ speak of the Queen of Sheba as a fact? If so, then He spoke of Jonas as a fact— unless there be some proof to the contrarj'. 2°. Were the book historical in its narrative, certain details would not be omitted, for instance, the place where the Prophet was vomited forth by the sea-monster, the par- ticular sins of which the Ninivites were guilty, the particular kind of ealamitj' by which the city was to be destroyed, the name of the Assyrian king under whom these events took place and who turned to the true God with such marvellous humility and repentance. We answer, these objections pro\'e that the book is not an historical account done according to later canons of historical criticism; they do not prove that the book is no history at all. The facts narrated are such as suited the purpose of the sacred writer. He told a story of glory unto the God of Israel and of downfall to the gods of Ninive. It is likely that the incidents took place during the period of Assyrian decadence — i. e. the reign of either Asurdanil or Asurnirar (770- 745 B. c). A pest had ravaged the land from 765 till 759 B. c. Internal strife added to the dismay caused by the deadly disease. The king's power was set at naught. Such a king might seem too little known to l>e mentioned. The Pharaoh of Mosaic times is not deemed to have been a fiction merely because his name is not given.
Jewish tradition assumed that the Prophet Jonas was the author of the book bearing his name, and the same has been generally maintained by Christian writers who defend the liistorical character of the nar- rative. But it may be remarked that nowhere does the Ijook itself claim to have lieen written by the Prophet (who is supposed to have lived in the eighth century B. c), and mast modern scholars, for various reasons, as.sign the date of the composition to a much later epoch, probably in the fifth century b. c. As in the case of other Old Testament personages, many legends, mostly fantastic and devoid of critical value, grew up around the name of Jonas. They may be found in the "Jewish Encyclopedia".
EniMONi in ViGorRoux, Did. de la Bible, s. v.; KoNio in HASTINGS, Dirt, oflhe Bible, a. v.; GlGOT, Special Introduction to the Slwlij of the Old Testament, II (New York, 1906), xviii, §3; CoHNELY, Introduclio in S. Script., part II, pp. 560 sqq.; Jewish Encyclopedia, s. v. ^ t-. t^
James F. Driscoll.
Jonas of Bobbio (or op Sus.\), monk and hagi- ographer, b. about the close of the sixth century at Sigusia (Su.sa) in Piedmont; d. after 6.50. In 618 he entered the monastery of Bobbio in the province of Pavia where he was soon appointed to a position of confidence, probably that of secretary to the abbots .\ttala (d. 627) anil Bertulf. He accompanieil the latter on a journey to Rome in 628, and after his re- turn took up his |)ermanent abode in (iaul. .\pju'Mli'(l to by St. Amandus for assistance in his missionary worli among the heathen, he laboured in what is now Belgium and Northern France. His presence in this
