"jNIiicli criticism has been expended on the script- ural account of Jonah being swallowed by a large fish ; it has been variously understood as a literal transaction, as an entire fiction or an allegory, as a poetical mythus or a parable. With regard to the reniarUs of those writers who ground their objections upon the denial of miracle, it is obvious tliat chis is not the place for dis- cussion ; the question of Jonah in the fisli's belly will share the same fate as any other miracle recorded in the Old Test. (See Ilerttenstcin, De Pisce qui Jonam Bevoravit [Yitemb. 1705].) The reader will find in KosenmUUer's Proleyomena several attempts by various writers to explain the scriptural narrative, none of which, however, have anything to recommend them, unless it be in some cases the ingenuity of the authors, such as, for instance, that of (iodfrey Less, who sup- posed that the • fish ' was no animal at all, but a ship with the figure of a fish painted on the stern, into whicli Jonah was received after he had been cast out of his own vessel ! Equally curious is the explana- tion of G. C. Anton, wlio endeavored to solve the diffi- culty bj' supposing that just as the prophet was thrown into the water, the dead carcass of some large fish floated by, into the belly of which he contrived to get, and that thus he was drifted to the shore ! The opinion of Kosenmiiller, that the whole account is found- ed on the Plicenician fable of Hercules devoured by a sea-monster sent by Neptune (Lycophron, Cassand. 33), although sanctioned by Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, and other German writers, is opposed to all sound principles of Biblical exegesis. It will be our purpose to consider what portion of the occurrence partakes of a natural and what of a miraculous nature. In the first place, then, it is necessary to observe that the Greeli word Ki]TOQ, used by Matthew, is not restricted in its mean- ing to • a whale,' or any cetacean ; like the Latin cete or a'tus, it may denote any sea -monster, either 'a whale,' or "a shark,' or a 'seal,' or • a tunny of enor- mous size ' (see Athen. p. 303 b [ed. Dindorf ] ; Odi/s. xii, 97; iv, 440, 452, Iliad, xx, 147). Altliough two or three species of whale are found in the jMediterraneau Sea, yet the ' great fish ' that swallowed the prophet cannot properly be identified with any cetacean, for, al- though the sperm-whale (Cutodoii macrocephulus) has a gullet sufficiently large to admit the body of a man, yet it can hardly be the fish intended; as tlie natural food of cetaceans consists of small animals, such as me- dnsaj and Crustacea. Nor, again, can we agree with bishop .lebb (Sacred Literature, p. 178, 179) that the Koikia of the Greek Test, denotes the back portion of a whale's mouth, in the cavity of which the prophet was concealed ; for the whole passage in Jonah is clearly op- posed to such an interpretation. The only fish, then, ca- pable of swallowing a man would be a large specimen of the white shark (Carclumas vulgaris), that dreaded en- emy of sailors, and the most voracious of the family of iSqualidce. This shark, which sometimes attains the length of thirty feet, is quite able to swallow a man whole. Some commentators are sceptical on this point. It woidd, however, be easy to quote passages from the writings of authors and travellers in proof of this as- sertion ; we confine ourselves to two or tliree extracts. The shark ' has a large gullet, and in the belly of it are sometimes found the bodies of men half eaten ; some- times whole and entire'' (Nature Displayed, iii, 140). Hut lest the abbe Pluche should not be considered suf- ficient authority, we give a quotation from Mr. Couch's recent publication, ^1 History of the Fishes of the British Islands. Speaking of white sharks, this autlior, who has paid much attention to the habits of fish, states that ' they usually cut asunder any object of considerable size and thus swallow it; but if thev find a difficulty in doing this, there is no hesitation in passing into the stomach even what is of enormous bulk ; and the for- mation of the jaws and throat render this a matter of
but little difficulty.' Ruysch saj's that the whole body of a man in armor (loricafus) has been found in the stomach of a Avhite shark ; and Captain King, in his Survey of A ustraliu,iiays he had caught one which could have swallowed a man with the greatest ease. Bhi- menbach mentions that a whole horse has been found in a shark, and Captain IJasil Hall reports tlie faking of one in' which, besides oiher things, he found the whole skin of a buff'alo which a short time before had been thrown overboard from his ship (i, 27). Dr. Baird, of the Britisl) Museum (Cyclop, of Nat. Sciences, p. 514), says that in the river Ilooghly, below Calcutta, he had seen a white shark swallow a bullock's head and horns entire, and lie speaks also of a sliark's mouth being ' suf- ficiently wide to receive the body of a man.' Wherever, therefore the Tarshisii, to which Jonah's ship was bound, was situated, whether in Spain or in Cilicia or in Cey- lon, it is certain that the common white shark might have been seen on the voyage. The C vulyaris is not uncommon in the Mediterranean; it occurs, as Forskal (Descript. A nimal. p. 20) assures us, in the Arabian Gulf, and is common also in tlie Indian Ocean. So far for the natural portion of the subject. But how Jonah could have been swallowed whole unhurt, or how he could have existed for any time in the shark's bellj', it is im- possible to exjilain by simply natural causes. Certain- ly the preservation of Jmiah in a fish's belly is not more remarkable than that of tlie three children in the midst of Nebuchadnezzar's ' burning fiery furnace.' Natural- ists have recorded that sharks have the habit of throw- ing np again whole and alive the prey they have seized (see Couch's Hist, of Fishes, i, 33). ' I have heard,' savs Mr. Darwin, ' from Dr. Allen of Forres, that he has fre- quently found a Diodon fioating alive and distended in the stomach of a shark; and that on several occasions he has known it eat its way out, not only through the coats of the stomach, but through the sides of the mon- ster, which has been thus killed'" (Smith).