I believe it to be universal with critics of the new school and their disciples, to deny the historical reality of the story of Jonah. Those of them who still believe in Jesus Christ, find it necessary to reckon with a statement from his lips, found in Matthew xii. 38-41. The passage seems to contain a positive affirmation of the reality of the two events which render the story of Jonah incredible in the judgment of most of these gentlemen, and they have felt the necessity of setting aside in some way its apparent force. The passage reads thus:

      Then certain of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee. But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet: for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold a greater than Jonah is here.

      In demanding of Jesus a sign, the scribes and Pharisees denied by implication that any of the multitude of signs which he had wrought were real signs; and their demand was for one of a different kind. In answering that no sign should be given but that of the prophet [1] Jonah, he could not have meant that he would give no more of the kind which he had been giving; for he did give more of these, and in great abundance; but he meant that none should be given of a different kind, except the sign of Jonah. This was different, in that it was wrought upon him, and not by him, and it was therefore a more direct and manifest exhibition of power from heaven. He explains what he means by the sign of Jonah, by adding: "As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea-monster, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." He then affirms, that because the men of Nineveh repented at the preaching of Jonah, and the men of his own generation repented not at his own greater preaching, the former shall rise up in the judgment and condemn the latter; that is, cause them to receive a severer sentence.

      To the great mass of readers in every age and country, it has appeared that Jesus here assumes as a settled fact that Jonah was in the great fish as described in the Book of Jonah, and that the Ninevites actually repented under the influence of his preaching. So obvious does this appear that probably no human being has ever raised a question about it until after he has reached the conclusion that these two events are incredible. Then he must get rid of this obvious meaning, or deny the truthfulness of an assertion made by Jesus Christ. Many attempts at the former have been made in recent years, and I propose, in this volume, to put every one of them to the test, so far as they have come under my notice. I do this, not because it is a matter of supreme importance in itself to know whether Jonah was swallowed by the fish and thrown up again, but because [2] the question involves principles of interpretation which affect every statement by our Lord with reference to events mentioned in the Old Testament, and in reference to the authorship of some of its books. It is really a question as to whether Jesus is to be received as a competent witness respecting historical and literary matters of the ages which preceded his own. If he is not, then the conception of his person and his powers which believers have hitherto entertained must undergo very serious modifications, even if it shall not be totally abandoned. One of the editors of the Biblical World, Professor Shailer Mathews, has felt the need of some efforts to settle this question, and in the number of that magazine for June, 1895, he published a symposium, the origin of which he states in these words:

      In order to learn how far this passage, with its explicit reference, is held by the teachers of religion to set Christ's seal upon the story of Jonah, letters were sent to a considerable number of representative pastors and teachers, asking them to give the readers of the Biblical World their opinions. The following replies have been received in time for publication in this number (p. 417).

      Eight replies are published, contributed respectively by Lemuel C. Barnes, Pittsburg, Pa; J. Henry Thayer, Harvard Divinity School; Franklin Johnson, University of Chicago; William DeW. Hyde, Bowdoin College; Philip S. Moxom, Springfield, Mass.; Rush Rhees, Newtown Theological Institution; Amory H. Bradford, First Congregational Church, Montclair, N. J.; and C. J. H. Ropes, Bangor Theological Seminary.

      The editor sums up the result of the symposium in the following statement at the close of the series:

      It is not difficult to formulate the common belief found in these statements of men who differ greatly in their attitude [3] toward many theological questions. It is this: Christ's use of the experience of Jonah as an illustration in no way gives his sanction to the view that the Book of Jonah is history (p. 430).

      It strikes me as rather singular that the editor here speaks of "Christ's use of the experience of Jonah," when Jonah had no such experience. Does the editor here unconsciously betray the fact that the reality of this experience is so impressed on his own mind that he unintentionally concedes it while arguing against it?

      I confess myself ignorant of the special qualifications of all these eight scholars, with the exception of Professor Thayer, of Hartford, whose reputation is international; but I assume from the positions which they occupy, and from the choice made of them by the editor, that they are all men of competent attainments. I shall, therefore, treat their positions, and the reasons by which they defend them, as the best that can be said by men on their side of the question.

      Professor Thayer is the only one of the eight who says plainly what he thinks of the Book of Jonah. He says:

      In my judgment, the characteristics of the Book of Jonah favor the opinion that it is an apologue, or "religious novel," a composition didactic in its aim. How large a historic element it contains can hardly be determined (417).

      It seems from this that the book, though a novel, contains a historic element; but how large this element is, the Professor can not determine. As foot is sometimes stranger than fiction, why not suppose that Jonah's experience in the fish is the historical element, and that the novel was woven around this central fact? Nothing in the sentence just quoted, or in all that the Professor has said, conflicts with this supposition; and yet this is [4] apparently the very thing of all in the book which he would most seriously doubt.

      While Professor Thayer can not determine the amount of historic matter in the book, Professor Hyde is equally unable to determine what Jesus meant by his allusion to it. He says:

      I should rather not commit myself to an exegesis of such a highly figurative passage as Matthew xii. 39, 40. A man's exegesis of such a passage as that is bound to be simply a reading into it of his general conception of things. What it says is as plain as A, B. C. It requires no exegesis to determine that. It may mean any one of ten thousand things to as many readers. Just precisely what Jesus meant by it we shall never know (419).

      This Professor has certainly made a new discovery. It is the discovery of a fact which no man ever before suspected, the fact that this passage, the meaning of which has hitherto given commentators no serious difficulty, is so obscure that it may mean any one of ten thousand things to as many readers; and that what Jesus really meant, "we shall never know." If we have to choose between ten thousand different meanings, I am afraid that we shall never know, sure enough. But perhaps the figures can be reduced a little, as in case of the man who was starting the song,--

When he got to "ten thousand," the tune suddenly rose so high that he could not reach it; but after he had made two or three vain attempts, a neighbor whispered: "Put it down to five hundred and you can reach it." Perhaps, when our Professor gets over the excitement of his new discovery, he will put his figures down. Scientific critics should aim at exactness. [5]

      One of these writers, Mr. Moxom, cuts the Gordian knot, by pronouncing the remark about Jonah and the fish a spurious addition to Matthew's narrative. He says:

      I agree with Wendt that verse 40 is an interpolation. The sign to which Jesus refers in verse 39 is evidently the prophet preaching repentance. As Jonah preached to the Ninevites, so Jesus preached to the men of his time. There are coherency and force in the passage, verses 39 and 41 if we leave out verse 40. Verse 40 introduces a new idea, and one that is not strictly congruous with the others (420).

      I suppose that a meaning of the passage is implied in these remarks, which we might count as one of Professor Hyde's ten thousand. But we shall not dwell upon it; for the writer virtually takes back what I have quoted when he says in the very next sentence: "There is, as far as I know, no evidence that verse 40 is a gloss." I suppose he means, no evidence other than conjecture; and in this he is right. Having conceded this, he goes outside the laws of textual criticism in holding the passage to be spurious. A theory which demands the erasure of Scripture to make room for itself is self-evidently unscriptural.

      Only one of these writers, Professor Ropes, ventures to say explicitly what Jesus thought of the Book of Jonah. He says:

      I have no doubt Jesus supposed the Book of Jonah was historical, and have no objection to believing that he thought the same of the sea-monster miracle, though the evidence is less cogent. But the attempt to use such facts in the higher criticism controversy seems to be founded on a radically erroneous view of Christ's knowledge while on earth (429).

      According to this writer, then, Jesus labored under a mistake in regard to the book; for he supposed it to [6] be historical, when it was not. Yet the same writer says in the next paragraph:

      Throughout his ministry, Jesus showed full knowledge of all that belonged to the revelation he brought, and exercised the prophetic gifts of insight into character and future events.

      This concession falsifies the preceding statement; for, if Jesus showed full knowledge of all that belonged to the revelation which he brought, then he had full knowledge of all the Old Testament records, so far, at least, as he made use of them. But he did make a most important use of the two principal incidents recorded in the Book of Jonah. He did suppose, says our professor, that this book was historical; and his full knowledge implies that what he thus supposed he also knew. He knew, then, that the Book of Jonah was historical; and the attempt to use such facts as arguments in the higher criticism controversy is not, as he affirms, founded on "an erroneous view of Christ's knowledge while on earth."

      This writer has another remark, in the line of the first one quoted above, which I must notice.

      But, receiving his authority absolutely in the spheres of religion and morality, I do not see why his knowledge of the literary history of the Old Testament should have differed essentially from that of his contemporaries, any more than his knowledge of chemistry or astronomy (430).

      I could better estimate this remark if I understood the writer to hold that the Old Testament has no more connection with "the spheres of religion and morality" than chemistry and astronomy have; but if he receives, as he says he does, the divine authority, of Christ in the spheres of morality and religion, then he must receive [7] as true those records in the Old Testament on the truth of which Jesus based certain of his moral and religious teachings.

      This inconsistency in Professor Ropes is but an illustration of the fact which will again and again appear as we proceed with this symposium, that no man can accept the divine authority of Jesus, and reject his endorsement of the Old Testament, without self-contradiction. I wonder, by the by, how this Professor ascertained that Jesus was as ignorant as his contemporaries were of chemistry and astronomy?

      Before I notice the direct arguments by which these eight writers attempt to make good their common position, I wish first to settle, if possible, what our Saviour meant by "the sign of Jonah," in the assertion, "No sign shall be given but the sign of Jonah the prophet." Some of them take the position that Jonah's preaching to the Ninevites was the sign. Thus Mr. Moxom says:

      The sign to which Jesus refers, in verse 39 is evidently the prophet preaching repentance. As Jonah preached to the Ninevites, so Jesus preached to the men of his time. . . . In brief, then, I take the meaning to be this: Jesus declines to furnish any sign in response to the demand of the Scribes and Pharisees, save the obvious one of himself preaching repentance to them, as Jonah preached to the Ninevites (420).

      To the same effect Professor Ropes says:

      The question is: How did Jonah become a sign? Matthew replies, by the sea-monster miracle, analogous to Christ's resurrection. But Luke xi. 30 may mean that Jonah was a sign like Christ, by preaching repentance in view of coming judgement. Conservatives underestimate the strength of this view by assuming it implies that Jonah's sign was only a call to repentance. [8] Jonah cried, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." So Christ proclaimed: "Repent, or Jerusalem shall be overthrown;" and in conduct and destiny the Jews strongly contrast with the Ninevites (428).

      If the view of Luke's meaning here expressed is correct, it contradicts the meaning ascribed to Matthew; and I am not sure which view the writer really takes. He certainly understands Matthew correctly; or rather, he understands correctly the words of Jesus reported by Matthew; for when Jesus says, "No sign shall be given save the sign of Jonah," then immediately adds: "For as Jonah was in the belly of the sea monster three days and three nights, so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth," he certainly explains by the last remark what he means by the sign of Jonah. His own resurrection, after entombment for three days, is called the sign of Jonah, because of the similarity of the two miracles. This view is confirmed by the consideration that it was undoubtedly a miraculous sign which the scribes and Pharisees demanded; and the word sign in his answer must be understood in the same sense. It is also confirmed by the consideration that the word rendered sign (seemeion) is used almost exclusively in the New Testament for signs of a miraculous character. Indeed, it is the word most usually translated miracle. Those works which we call miracles are in the New Testament designated by three different Greek words. They are called mighty works (dunameis) because of the divine power exhibited in them. They are called wonders (terata) because of the wonder which they excite in the beholder; and they are called signs (seemeia), because they always signify something connected with the will of God. [9]

      This view is furthermore confirmed, and made, I think, altogether certain, by the parallel passage in Luke, who quotes another remark of Jesus not reported by Matthew. According to his report, Jesus said: "For even as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation" (xi. 30). This is not to be regarded as a different version of the Lord's answer, but only as an additional part of the whole answer, Luke giving one part and Matthew the other, as they very often do. Jesus then asserts that Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, and he uses the word sign, as we have seen, in the sense of a miracle. But how could Jonah have been a miraculous sign to the Ninevites? He wrought no miracle among them; and his preaching could not have been regarded by them as miraculous until, by means of come separate miraculous sign they were convinced that it was a miraculous prediction. That which made him a sign to the Ninevites must then have been his experience in the fish, connected as it was with the command twice given to go and cry against Nineveh.

      One of the eight writers in the symposium, while agreeing with the others on the main question under discussion, avows explicitly the view just stated of the sign of Jonah. He says:

      Apt, therefore, as is the story of Jonah's preaching to illustrate the relation of Jesus to his generation, the wording of Luke xi. 30, and what we know of the habits of interpretation in Jesus' day, lead to the conclusion that Luke's more general explanation of the sign of Jonah should be understood in the sense of Matthew's more concrete interpretation; and to the conviction that in the use Jesus made of the words, the sign of Jonah was the deliverance by which he came to be the bearer to Nineveh of the effective warning which led to the people's repentance. The [10] explanation of the sign of Jonah in Matthew xii. 40, and Luke xi. 3, may be paraphrased thus: As, in the personal experience of Jonah, God proved to him, and afterward to those who heard of his attempted flight, that he was the chosen messenger to the Ninevites; so in the personal experience of the Son of man will God prove to all men that he is the appointed messenger to this generation. This sign in each case is the personal experience of the prophet (Professor Rhees, 423, 424).

      Professor Ropes also appears to take the same position, and he quotes with approval a statement of the analogy drawn by Jesus, from the pen of Grass. Here is what he says of this point:

      Perhaps Christ's hearers would naturally think of the sea-monster miracle as the sign of Jonah. And here, too, a good analogy may be found. "In Jonah's life a miracle occurred which could have exerted a controlling influence in vanquishing opposition to him. Yet this didn't help the Ninevites, since they learned nothing about it, but could an event to the decision on the basis of Jonah's preaching alone. Even so in Christ's life, a miracle was about to occur which could exert a controlling influence in drawing men to him. Yet this would no more help this generation to come to a decision than the Jonah sign helped the Ninevites; they must decide on the sole basis of Christ's preaching" (428).

      While these two writers differ from two others of the eight in agreeing that the sign of Jonah is the miracle wrought on Jonah's person, the latter, forgetting the very words of Jesus on which he is commenting, declares that the Ninevites were not helped by the sign "since they learned nothing about it." How could it be true, then, that he was a sign to the Ninevites? How could an event be a sign to a people when they had never heard of it? And, stranger still, this Professor says that the sign which Jesus was about to give by his [11] resurrection would not help his generation to come to a decision, when the facts in the Book of Acts show that it did help them by causing many thousand to come to a decision under the preaching of the apostles.

      But did the Ninevites hear of the sign of Jonah before they repented at his preaching? These men and many others answer, no; and they so answer because the fact is not stated in the Book of Jonah. But while it is not stated in that book, it is stated by Jesus, and there is nothing in the book which conflicts with the statement. On the contrary, the book leaves the way open for the supposition that the news of the miracle reached Nineveh as soon as Jonah did, if not sooner. When he was landed from the mouth of the fish the story immediately became known to the men who found him on the seashore, or to whose house he resorted for food. It is not probable that after fasting and suffering as he did for three days, he was able at once to travel toward home. The story, then, would start ahead of him. When he reached home, we are not told that the Lord renewed immediately the command to go to Nineveh. For aught that is said in the text to the contrary, he may have remained in quiet at home for a week, or a month, before this command came to him; and certainly if God desired the sign to have its effect in advance on the Ninevites, he would delay the command sufficiently for the purpose.

      That this view of the sign, and of its conveyance to the Ninevites, is correct, is finally proved by the nature of the analogy which Jesus draws. The sign which he gave to the men of his generation by his resurrection from the dead, was communicated to them in all its details by the apostles. Otherwise it could have been [12] to them no sign. Necessarily, then, if there was a real analogy, and not a sophistical assertion of one, the sign in the person of Jonah must have been communicated to the Ninevites, and it must, as in the other case, have been the controlling evidence on which their faith and their consequent repentance rested. In view of all these considerations, I hope I shall not be considered too confident when I say that the sign of Jonah was the miracle wrought on his person, and that this was certainly known to the Ninevites before they repented at his preaching.

      Only one of the eight writers whose symposium I am reviewing, Professor Ropes, denies that Jesus had knowledge of the literary history of the Old Testament above that of his contemporaries. The other seven, in arguing that his remark about Jonah does not commit him to the historical reality of the story, appeal to what they consider parallel remarks which convey no similar implication. Taking them in the order in which I find them, I shall carefully consider what they say on this point.

      Mr. Barnes puts the argument thus:

      Jesus enforced the message upon his lettered hearers with classic point, as in speaking to the students of Princeton Dr. A. J. Gordon might have warned them against the captivating assaults of sin coming in like captors in the wooden horse. The Homeric question would not, thereby, be settled or even raised to consciousness in a healthy mind (p. 417).

      I think that a moment's reflection will show that this last statement would or would not be true according to circumstances. If the students addressed knew that the lecturer disbelieved the story of the wooden horse, they would, of course, understand him as not [13] intending to affirm its truthfulness. But if they believed the story themselves, and knew nothing of his belief, they would unquestionably suppose that he believed as they did. In the latter case, if he did not wish to be understood as indorsing the story, fair dealing with his hearers would demand an intimation at least of his real opinion. In the case of Jesus, his hearers believed the reality of the story of Jonah, and they had not the least thought that Jesus doubted it; when then he said that Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the fish, they could not doubt that he believed it; and he made a false impression if he did not.

      Next we take Professor Thayer's statement:

      To regard our Lord's use of the narrative as vouching for it as history, is to confound the province and function of a preacher of righteousness with that of a higher critic or of a scientific lecturer. As reasonably might one infer from an allusion in a motherly sermon to William Tell, or Effie Deans, or the Man Without a Country, that the speaker held these personages to be thoroughly historic, and their narrated experiences matters of fact. As warrantably might we make Christ's gratuitous mention (only three verses later) of evil spirits as frequenting waterless places, the basis of a demonology for which he is to be held responsible (418).

      As to William Tell, although I know that some critics now doubt whether he ever existed, when I hear a speaker mention something that he did, I always think that he believes the incident which he mentions, unless he gives some intimation to the contrary. If he introduces it as something that is said to have been done by William Tell, I understand him as doubting the story. As for Effie Deans, and the Man Without a Country, I confess myself so ignorant of them, that if I were to [14] hear Professor Thayer in sober discourse mention something that either of them did, I would suppose that he was mentioning a real transaction. I stand with reference to William Tell where the Jews stood with reference to Jonah; and with reference to Effie Deans and the Man Without a Country, I stand as the Jews would have stood if they had never heard of Jonah. Jesus, then, if he did not believe the story of Jonah, would have made the same false impression on the Jews as the Professor would on me in the case of Effie Deans.

      As to our Lord's remark about evil spirits frequenting waterless places, while it would be hazardous to make it the "basis of a demonology for which he is to be held responsible," he certainly is to be held responsible for the remark itself. If an evil spirit, when he left a man, did not frequent waterless places, I should be glad to learn from Professor Thayer what kind of places he did frequent. If we may judge by those that went into the herd of swine, the evil spirits were not fond of being in the water; and even before they went out of the man they kept him among the tombs, which were certainly waterless places. If, then, the statement about the evil spirit is to be taken as a parallel to that about Jonah, we should conclude that the latter was really three days and three nights in the fish. Moreover, if Jesus knew the mysterious movements of disembodied spirits, we might credit him with knowing something about men in the flesh like Jonah.

      Professor Franklin Johnson, of Chicago University, makes the same argument with different illustrations:

      The great writers and orators of all peoples and ages have spoken of the characters of fiction as if they were real. All competent writers and orators do so today. Even the minister [15] who is offended with these lines will refer in next Sunday's sermon to the prodigal son, to the sower, to the merchant seeking goodly pearls, without telling his people these characters are not historical. He will refer to Mr. Facing-both-ways, to Mr. Fearing, or to Christian at the Wicket Gate, in the Slough of Despond, or in the Vanity Fair, and will tell what they did, with no thought of the question whether his statements are derived from history or from allegory, I could show by many examples that this was the custom of the writers and speakers of antiquity. In fact, one of these examples is given by Christ himself. After relating the parable of the Unjust Judge, he begins his comment upon it with a sentence such as he would have used had the parable been history: "Hear what the unjust judge saith" (Luke xviii. 6). So also in Jude 7, 14, 15, the lord's brother refers to the story of the crime of the angels with the women of the world before the flood, without raising the question of its historical character, and quotes from the Book of Enoch, as we quote from some disputed dialogue of Plato, without raising the question of its genuineness (418, 419).

      The Professor need not have insisted so earnestly that writers and orators of all peoples and ages speak of the characters of fiction as if they were real; for this is not denied by anybody. The question at issue is evaded by all such remarks, and by all the illustrations adduced in their support. The real question is, whether, in the specific remark of Christ about Jonah, and in strictly parallel remarks, the reality of the alleged experience is affirmed. This depends on the remark itself, and on the connection in which it occurs; but not on one or a thousand remarks of a different nature about other matters. Professor Johnson doubtless thought, when he wrote his article, that his examples were relevant and conclusive. Let us examine them, and see.

      His first group includes three characters in the Saviour's parables; and he assumes that the prodigal son, the sower, and the dealer in pearls were not historical [16] characters. How does he know that they were not? Did no sower ever go out to sow, and meet with the exact experience of the one in the parable? The Professor must know that this was the experience of thousands of sowers in Palestine every year; and that it is to this day. Did no younger son ever pass through the identical experiences of the prodigal? Who can say no, when thousands of them are now passing through experiences almost identical? And as to the unjust judge, tyrannical governments in the East have swarmed with such in all ages, and no man can safely deny that one of them spoke and acted precisely as Jesus describes him. The second group of examples, taken from "Pilgrim's Progress," can be used as they are for the reason, first, that nearly all auditors are familiar with them as fictitious characters; and second, because their very names are suggestive of fiction, and would be so understood on hearing them the first time. There is no parallel between them and the case in hand; for, in order to such a parallel the hearers of Jesus should have known that Jonah was a fictitious character, or else the language of Jesus should have been suggestive of fiction. In the third group, taken from Jude, the Professor assumes as correct an interpretation which is disputed; and even so he does not make good his point. The great majority of scholars deny that Jude makes any allusion to crime committed by angels with women; and if it can be made out that he does, then it will still be necessary, before the argument is made good, to show that the fact which be alludes to was not a fact; and this Professor Johnson can not do. He can make it appear very improbable, but further than this he can not go. On the contrary, if he could prove that Jude asserts that this [17] crime was committed, he would thereby prove to most men that it really was. The case would then be like that of Jesus and Jonah. As to the Book of Enoch, Jude makes no statement on its authority. He makes a statement about Enoch which is also found substantially in that book; but he states it as a fact without referring to his source of knowledge, and nearly all men, since his epistle was written, have received it as a fact; so that, if it is not a fact, Jude has deceived them. This is a true parallel to the remark of Jesus about Jonah; for in both instances a fact is asserted, and men in general have believed the fact because of these assertions. Careful and elaborate, therefore, as is the argument of Professor Johnson, it is a failure.

      Professor Hyde, the writer who thinks that the passage under consideration may mean "any one of ten thousands things to as many readers," and that "precisely what Jesus meant by it we shall never know," follows the same line of argument, and expresses himself thus:

      As to Jesus' use of the Old Testament, it seems to me that he used it just as we use Bunyan or Shakespeare--without concerning himself one way or the other about its historicity or literary form or authorship, or date of composition, and assuming that his immediate hearers would have sufficient common sense to take his words as he meant them. To tie him down to a belief in the historical character of the story of Jonah is as absurd as it would be to make every man who ever referred to the Slough of Despond a believer in the geographical reality of such a place (419, 420).

      If Jesus used the Old Testament as we use Bunyan and Shakespeare, he used it as an allegory or a poem, and in no sense as history. It is astonishing that a sane man can so assert or believe. But Perhaps the Professor intended to qualify the statement by the words, [18] "without concerning himself one way or the other about its historicity or literary form or authorship, or date of composition." But if he used it without concerning himself about its historicity or its authorship, he did not use it as we use Bunyan and Shakespeare. Who quotes either of these authors without concerning himself about their historicity? The man who would use Anthony's oration over Cæsar's dead body, or Christian's struggle through the Slough of Despond, as a piece of history, would be set down as an ignoramus or deceiver; and the man who would quote Shakespeare in the name of Milton, or Bunyan in the name of Ben Jonson would reap the same reward. We do not then use these two works, or any other worlds, without concerning ourselves about their historicity or their authorship; and the same is true of Jesus in his dealings with the Old Testament. The Professor's citation of the Slough of Despond is wide of the mark; for the only reason why a public speaker can now refer to that without misleading his hearers into the belief of its reality, is that his hearers already know it to be an imaginary slough. If the hearers of Jesus had so understood the story of Jonah, the cases would be parallel; but it is notorious, and it is freely admitted that they understood the story to be true, and when, therefore, Jesus spoke of it as a true story he deceived them if it was not. This point, let me say with emphasis, is totally ignored by all the writers on the side with these eight. Why so? Is it because they are too dull to see that such a point can be made in answer to them? I can not think so. Why, then, do they ignore it? I should be glad to know. I hope I shall obtain from some of them an answer. [19]

      The fifth writer in the symposium is Philip S. Moxom, of Springfield, Mass. As he denies the genuineness of the passage under consideration, he saves himself the necessity of trying to prove that the remark of Jesus about Jonah does not imply the reality of Jonah's experience; we therefore pass on to the sixth writer, who is Professor Rhees, of Newton Theological Institution. He says:

      It is evident that in Jesus' words the story of Jonah is treated as historical. The contemporaries of Jesus held it to be sober history. And Jonah is appealed to in the same way as Abraham and David are referred to in the New Testament. It is to be noticed, however, that the reference is only by way of illustration. And consequently it may not be said that the validity of the illustration passes, if the story is found to be allegory and not fullest history. So long as it served to suggest to the hearers of Jesus the thought of his vindication by a miraculous deliverance, the story would be an apt illustration. And we need not doubt that our Lord would use it without raising the question of its historicity (425, 426).

      This writer, like all the others, evades the real issue and raises another. The question is not, whether an illustration drawn from a supposed fact would be invalidated by the discovery that the account of the fact is allegorical; but whether the particular use that Jesus made of the story of Jonah implies that Jonah was in the fish. When Prof. Rhees says, at the beginning of the extract just made, that in the words of Jesus the story of Jonah is treated as historical, and adds that the contemporaries of Jesus held it to be sober history, he cuts himself off from all escape in the direction in which he seeks it; for if Jesus treated the story as historical in speaking to men who held it to be so, then he was either mistaken about it himself, or he deceived his [20] hearers. There is no possible escape from this alternative.

      To say that the reference to Jonah is "only by way of illustration," betrays still greater confusion of thought. What was he aiming to illustrate? Let us try a strictly parallel remark: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive." Is this an illustration? To ask the question is to answer it. Instead of being an illustration, it is the prediction of a future fact and the declaration that it will be as universal as a well-known fact in the past. The undoubted reality of the past fact is what gives force to the assertion respecting the future one. If a man could answer Paul by saying, Very well; all did not die in Adam; he could add, Then all, according to your own showing, will not be made alive in Christ. So in the present instance. If the Pharisees could have answered Jesus, as these critics now do, by saying, Very well, Master; Jonah was not in the bowels of the fish; they could have added, Therefore, according to your own showing, you will not be in the heart of the earth. Instead of being an illustration of something,--and Professor Rhees does not attempt to tell us of what--the remark was a solemn prediction of a fact yet to be, which should be analogous to one that certainly had been.

      But Professor Rhees, like all the others of the symposium, presents a supposed parallel to the remark in question, by which he attempts to sustain his interpretation. He says:

      It is not generally held that by his words in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus has given sanction to the feature of Jewish eschatology which pictured the blessed dead, in waiting for the resurrection, as reclining in Abraham's bosom. It is no [21] more necessary to hold that he has here sanctioned any particular conclusion concerning the nature of the narrative in the Book of Jonah (426).

      If there was any such "feature of Jewish eschatology" as is here intimated, I am sure Jesus never uttered a word to give sanction to it. It would have been too foolish a "feature" for any thoughtful man to sanction; for how could all the millions of the "blessed dead" recline in the bosom of a single man? This "feature" would require Abraham to have an enormous bosom. It was a kindred thought, perhaps, which caused the men who constructed the grave of Noah, which is pointed out to the traveler in Palestine, to make it ninety feet long. No, Professor; Jesus did not sanction so absurd a "feature"; but he did say that angels bore Lazarus into Abraham's bosom; and I don't know any more comfortable place to which they could have borne him. There was room enough for him in the bosom of the patriarch, and if Professor Rhees does not believe that he was really borne thither, will he please to tell us whither he was borne? I know so little about that region myself, that I can take Jesus at his word when he speaks of it. If I reject his word about it, to whom shall I go?

      The next writer, Amory H. Bradford, expresses himself very briefly and very clearly. He says:

      If the Book of Jonah was known by the Master to be a parable written for the purpose of conveying a great moral lesson, he might have referred to it in the language here used. He would not have conveyed a false impression, since his hearers would have understood his reference (427).

      This last remark shows that Mr. Bradford has caught one idea which the other writers have missed. [22] He sees that, in order to avoid making a false impression by referring to an imaginary fact as if it were real, the hearers as well as the speaker must understand the reference. But while he is undoubtedly correct in this he forgets that if Jesus made such a reference as this, his hearers did not understand the reference, for it is admitted on all hands that the Jews understood the story of Jonah to be sober history; and if Jesus did not so understand it, then, according to Mr. Bradford's own showing, he made a false impression. This writer has stumbled on the truth at one point, only to stumble over it at another.

      Like the others, this writer finds a parallel, as he supposes, in an admissible use of fictitious characters, and his chosen example is taken from the novel, "Les Miserables":

      Preachers not infrequently refer to the good bishop in "Les Miserables" as if he were a historical person; but because Canon Stubbs speaks of that story as if it were true, no one thinks that he means to be so understood, and if it is not true he can never be trusted again. He took it for granted that his hearers understood him and did not need to qualify his statement. It is quite conceivable that our Lord spoke in the same way (427).

      Very well; Canon Stubbs took it for granted that his hearers understood him as not affirming the truth of the story of the bishop, but in the case of Jesus the reverse was true; so the cases are not parallel. If Canon Stubbs would have misled his hearers, had they not understood him as they did, then Jesus misled his hearers if he understood the story of Jonah to be fictitious. Mr. Bradford must wipe out all that he has written in this symposium and make a new start from [23] a different point of view, if he is to maintain his contention.

      Near the close of his brief article, Mr. Bradford takes another turn in his effort to get rid of the natural view of the case. He says:

      He was not asked about the story; he as asked for a sign, and his reference to Jonah was incidental, and used because it would be easily understood by those whom he addressed (428).

      Yes; "easily understood by those whom he addressed"; and understood, as we have again and again reiterated, as a real event. Being so understood by them, we ask again, How can Jesus be relieved of the charge of duplicity if he knew that the event was not real, and yet used it to confirm their impression that it was? Again I demand that some of the critics shall answer this question.

      As Professor Ropes, the last of the eight, denies that Jesus knew any more about the Book of Jonah than did his contemporaries, he, of course, is freed from the necessity of explaining how he could consistently refer to the incident of the fish as a reality when it was not. He did so, according to this Professor, because he knew no better than to believe the story.

      We now come to the comments made on this symposium by the associate editor of the Biblical World. Professor Shailer Mathews. He states the common belief of the eight writers in these words:

      Christ's use of the experience of Jonah as an illustration, in no way gives his sanction to the view that the Book of Jonah is history.

      In this attempt to represent the common belief of the writers, the editor has drawn up on his imagination [24] rather than upon the articles of the writers; for only one of them says that Jesus used the experience of Jonah as an illustration; and I have showed very plainly, I think, that he did not so use it.

      These writers all feel, at least those of them who credit Jesus with knowing the facts about Jonah, that the only way to defend their position is to find, either in the lips of Jesus himself, or in those of some other approved speaker, a parallel statement in which the reality of the past fact referred to is not implied. They have ransacked the writings of Shakespeare, of Bunyan, of the popular novelists, and the parables of Jesus, to find one, and they have brought forth many; but every one of them fails, as we have seen, in the essential point of comparison. Let them find, if they can, a single instance in which Jesus mentioned something in the past which his hearers believed to be a fact, but which he certainly knew to be not a fact, and then compared with this some event yet in the future. I have given one allusion that is parallel, the saying of Paul, "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive"; but the allusion is to a real past event. Here is another example: "This Jesus, who was received up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye beheld him going into heaven" (Acts i. 11). Here the past event, his going into heaven, was a real one. Again: "As therefore the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be in the end of the world. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that cause stumbling, and them that do iniquity, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire" (Matt. xiii. 40, 41). Here is a strictly parallel case, and the past event, the gathering and [25] burning of the tares, is strictly historical. "As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so the Son of man must be lifted up" (John iii. 14). Again: "As it came to pass in the days of Noah, even so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man" (Luke xvii. 26). I know not how many more instances of the same construction can be found, for I have mentioned these only from memory; but let the critics find at least one such in which the past event, though spoken of as a reality, and believed by the hearer to be a reality, was known by Jesus to be a fiction. Then, and not till then, may they claim that the story of Jonah may also be a fiction, notwithstanding the use Jesus makes of it. If he had said, As the trees went forth once to choose for themselves a king, so shall something else yet take place; and had the Jews believed that Jothan's fable was a piece of history, this would be such an example as the critics are searching for. Again, I say, let them find such an example, and cease their endless production of parallels that are not parallels. I am neither a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I stake my reputation as a man of some knowledge of the subject on the assertion that the example demanded will never be found. [26]

[JAJ 1-26]