Since the conclusion of my series of articles on the Book of Jonah, several articles on the meaning of the expression, "The Sign of Jonah," have appeared in the Expository Times, one of which I have already noticed. In the November number two such articles appeared in immediate succession, and they present a very striking contrast, the one with the other. One of them is from the pen of Sir J. W. Dawson, of Montreal, better known as Principal Dawson, under which title he won his knighthood. As might be expected from his usual attitude on critical questions, he takes the natural and obvious view that the sign of Jonah was the fact of his experience in the bowels of the fish, as described in the Book of Jonah. In the course of his remarks he touches the question whether Christ could have made the reference to Jonah which he does if the story were fictitious, and he says:

      It is true that a preacher may cite as illustrations fictitious or allegorical personages, but he must not cite them as analogical evidence. Let him try this before an audience of unbelievers, and he will find them uttering, "That proves nothing; the thing never happened."

      Thus the learned writer takes the ground that Jesus did not cite the case of Jonah as an illustration, but as an event analogous to his own experience about to take place in the heart of the earth.

      The writer shows his appreciation of the work of the class of critics who deny the historicity of the story of Jonah in two very expressive passages. First, he says:

      The Sadducees logically rejected Jesus as a pretentious impostor. Yet it would seem that, in so far as the case of Jonah [130] is concerned, they were nearer to the kingdom of heaven than the "eminent scholars" of to-day. What can plain men do when our religious guides deny so many statements of alleged facts to which Christ commits himself?

      And again:

      The truth is that neither the common people nor those of scientific habits of thought can find any standing-room on the gossamer wires on which critical rope-dancers attempt to balance themselves. I have in my long pilgrimage had much experience of the modes of thought both of the people at large and of advanced scientific thinkers, and I know this to be the case.

      The other writer is "Rev. Charles Harris, M. A., F. R. G. S.," whose article not only presents a striking contrast to that of Dr. Dawson, but it strikingly illustrates his remark about the "critical rope-dancers." He takes the ground that the fish story is an allegory; and, unlike others who have taken this view, he actually undertakes to show what the allegory is. He first tells us that the word for Nineveh and that for fish are almost identical, the one being Ninua, and the other Nunu. (To the eye of an English reader their identity is not very apparent.) From this he concludes that "Nineveh is, therefore, the great Fish City." With this etymology as a start, he proceeds to explain the allegory thus:

      The solution of the story which is now offered amounts to this, that the fish which swallowed Jonah was none other than Nineveh, the great Fish City itself; out of the depths of which place, menaced on all sides by physical peril, and overwhelmed by the crime and wickedness around him, he uttered the cry for deliverance so poetically expressed in chapter 2.

      If Sir J. W. Dawson can not find standing-room on the gossamer wires of this critical rope-dancer, what more does the man want? [131]

[SEBC 130-131]