• @samus12345
    link
    English
    46 months ago

    The authors didn’t make a distinction between whales and fish.

    • @pyre
      link
      66 months ago

      to be fair, there’s no such thing as a fish…

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      66 months ago

      It says “large fish” in Hebrew.

      • @samus12345
        link
        English
        06 months ago

        Yes, and if they had a word for whale specifically, it was considered a type of large fish.

        • Flying SquidOP
          link
          36 months ago

          Now, the text doesn’t say “God appointed a whale” but just “a great fish.” Both the original Hebrew dag gadol and the Greek of the Septuagint, kētei megalōi, translate as “huge fish.” Archaeology has proved that the Mediterranean was once home to a great variety of whales —which the Romans hunted almost to the point of extinction. It might be the case that the author of the biblical text simply wanted to contrast Jonah’s “closed mouth” to that of the “big fish,” able not only to swallow a whole human being but also being hollow enough as to provide him with safe shelter for three days and three nights. Interestingly enough, during those three days Jonah certainly keeps his mouth open — he seems to spend them praying out loud.

          But how did this “big fish” turn into a whale and not into one of the 47 species of sharks found in the Mediterranean? It seems St. Jerome is to blame.

          https://aleteia.org/2021/07/15/jonah-was-not-swallowed-by-a-whale

          • Angel Mountain
            link
            fedilink
            26 months ago

            Does it really matter whether it was a whale or a “fish”? You can’t live in either, so it’s a BS story in a book of fairytales people take way too seriously.

            • Flying SquidOP
              link
              46 months ago

              No, it doesn’t matter. This was purely academic.