Catholic Apologetics International
The Prophecy of Jonah: History or Parable?
By Sandalio Diego, in Razon y Fe, Vol. 52 (1918) pp.5-16, Translator- Ben Douglass
Ben Douglass, Vice President of Apologetics at CAI submits a translation of a Spanish article (Razon y Fe, 1918) on the historicity of Jonah.
I have attempted to translate from the original Spanish as literally as possible, except where a literal translation would be hopelessly obscure or unwieldy, or where I thought there was significant gain in departure from formal equivalence (I successfully resisted the temptation to render antepenultima fasciculo as antepenultimate fascicle, for example). Hence, what follows will be lacking in the elegance of its English prose. However, the reader should still be able to benefit from Mr. Diego’s superb erudition, which he places uncompromisingly at the service of sacred Catholic Tradition and Holy Mother Church. Given that Catholic Scripture scholarship, more than simply feeling the pressure of encroaching modernism as in 1918, has today been positively engulfed by it, this article is even more relevant now than the day it was penned.
All patristic citations (except for brief citations of Theophylact and St. Gregory of Nyssa) are direct English translations of the original Latin and Greek. Most are taken from ccel.org and newadvent.org, except the citation of St. Jerome, whose commentary on Jonah has yet to be published in our language. I have tracked down the two English works cited by Mr. Diego, so they appear below in original form, not as translations of translations. Unfortunately, however, this has been the fate of the various French and German works cited in the course of his essay. One final note: Mr. Diego appears to use the term ad hominem in a different sense than we typically understand it. He uses it to refer to times when one steps into one’s opponent’s shoes and argues from his perspective: an argument to the person, not about him.
Into two large groups, according to a learned Catholic commentator (1), one may reduce the interpreters of the prophecy of Jonah: “those who consider it as strict history, and others who consider it as a freer narration of didactic character.” At present are counted the Protestant exegetes who figure in the former group. The others, after the divergent attempts of their predecessors, agree today in classifying the prophecy of the son of Amittai as a didactic narration; they call it legend, parable, midrash, allegory, symbol. And in this point they walk, as they perceive it, on conquered ground; whence the surety with which they express themselves. I have here two examples: C. Steuernagel, a person not unknown in the field of Scripture study, wrote in 1912: “No proof is required, and today one may state as universally recognized that any story, into which the marvelous so often enters, does not relate real events.” (2) The same year, in the exegetical series (3) which passes as more scientific among Protestants of the English tongue, the interpreter began his commentary on Jonah thus: “The story of the wilful prophet is one of the best known and most misunderstood in the Old Testament: an occasion for jest to the mocker, a cause of bewilderment to the literalist believer, but a reason for joy to the critic.” “It is sad,” he adds, “that men have so often missed the spirit by fastening their attention on the form of the story. The form is indeed fantastic enough and, unless rightly understood, it is likely to create difficulties.” Then he expatiates with enthusiastic elocution, until concluding that the sacred author presents us with “a story with a moral, a parable, a prose poem like the Good Samaritan, or Lessing's Ring story in Nathan the Wise, or Oscar Wilde's poem in prose, The Teacher of Truth.” (4) So it is among the heterodox.
But it is alarming that, these last few years, the view that Jonah is not a history but a fiction or parable has been propagating among Catholics as well. One will not fail to recognize that this question is of great consequence, for exegesis as well as for apologetics, for, depending upon whether one admits or rejects the historic character of Jonah, one’s approach to interpreting the book and to resolving the difficulties that are raised against it will be completely different.
The first of the Catholics who commented on the book of Jonah, negating its character as history, was, in 1908, the professor of the Catholic University of Louvain, A. Van Hoonacker (5). The same year, professor of exegesis M. Meinertz equally rejected the historicity of Jonah, in his work Jesus and the Mission to the Gentiles (6). The following year, the well known scripture scholar Lesetre did it, in the columns of a Catholic magazine of apologetics (7); in 1912, Holzhey, in his Abridged Textbook of Special Introduction to the Old Testament (8); and, after them, this judgment was proposed as solid and legitimate by Alberto Condamin, SJ, in the third to last volume of the Apologetic Dictionary of D’Ales, currently in the course of publication (9).
We believe it will please the reader that we reproduce and examine the foundations upon which said Catholic writers support their sentiment. In order to do so, we will pay special attention to Fr. Condamin’s article, as it compiles the arguments of the preceding authors and contributes new ones.
The article is conceived in this form: first it enumerates the difficulties today in vogue regarding the prophecy of Jonah, and then reproduces the solutions adopted since antiquity among Catholic expositors. So far, nothing extraordinary: they are, in general, the common objections and responses. But outside of the traditional system of solutions, the article continues, there exists another, which consists in “considering the prophecy of Jonah as a free composition of a didactic genre,” “like the parable of the Prodigal Son, for example.” Such an interpretation “cuts with a slash, and at the roots, the various difficulties raised by the historic interpretation,” “boasts of wise defenders in the most hostile schools of exegesis, and has gained ground among Catholics” (10). It is defended by Reuss and Konig, heterodox; Van Hoonacker, Meinertz, and Lesetre, Catholics.
Then in a new paragraph he gathers together the arguments for and against historicity, classifying them as extrinsic and intrinsic. As extrinsic arguments in favor he presents three groups of testimonies: first, Tob., 14, 4 (Greek text of B and A); 3 Mach., 6, 8; Flavius Josephus, Ant., IX, x, 2; second, the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ in Matth., 12, 39-42; Luc., 11, 29-32 (11); third, the patristic tradition.
As arguments against historicity, he adduces the reasons for which he endeavors to interpret these same testimonies in the opposite sense. In the first group, he says, the principle passage (Tob., 14, 4) was lacking in the primitive text, as today also it is absent from the Vulgate, the Syraic version, and Codex Sinaiticus; the other passages are of limited importance. Effectively, for our part we will dispense with the first group of evidence, as it is of slight importance. Neither in the second group, continues the author, do the testimonies prove what they attempt to, that is to say, that Jesus Christ took the prophecy of Jonah as history; for, as many Catholic writers opine, there are two other possibilities: either Our Lord, adapting Himself to His interlocutors who erroneously admitted historicity, could have employed an ad hominem argument, just as He did at other times in “accommodating His language to certain contemporary ideas in scientific, historical, or literary matters when the interest of religious truth or His divine mission did not demand that He correct them” (col. 1,554); or, better, He utilized the example of Jonah and the Ninivites as a mere literary device, for comparison, in which it is not important that the example be historical. Thus we see “that often common language draws from writings, whose non-historical character is recognized by all, terms which on the surface appear to be literal and absolute, but whose symbolic value is assumed and presupposed.” Likewise “when, in her liturgical prayers for the dead, the Church asks ut cum Lazaro quondam paupere aeternam habeat requiem she does not intend to pass judgment on the question of whether or not one must understand the parable of the avaricious rich man as history in the strict sense” (12), (col. 1,555). This being settled, he adds concerning the third group of evidence that
“the testimonies of the patristic tradition regarding the historicity of Jonah have for their sole object, unless they specify something more, the literary genre of the book, a question which does not pertain to faith and morals, provided that inspiration is safely maintained. In the present case, although there was strict unanimity among the Fathers of the Church, it would constitute, according to the theologians, a very respectable tradition, without doubt, but not a decisive one”(col. 1,556)
[N.B. Neither Vatican I nor Providentissimus Deus makes this distinction, B.D.].
Even more: in the time of the Fathers this question was conceived as open to divergent opinions, such that St. Gregory of Nazianzus mentions with praise (13) the interpretation of a learned person, who expounded the adventures of the prophet not historically, but only allegorically; and Theophylact expressly testifies: “One need not ignore it: some have admitted that the flight of Jonah, his disobedience, and all the rest is non-historical” (14). Very well, neither St. Gregory of Nazianzus nor Theophylact find a word of censure for this opinion.
As intrinsic proofs against historicity, the article alleges two: 1) The prophecy shows its didactic character by leaving out details that a history does not customarily omit. Wherefore “one finds neither the designation of the country at which Jonah arrives, nor the name of the King of Nineveh; neither is it specified what wickedness brought down on the Ninivites such terrible punishment” (col. 1.157). 2) Certain unbelievable and hyperbolic features are better conceived in a parable, where one intentionally pretends and hyperbolizes, unlike in a history. Thus “the character and the sentiments of the prophet, the dates on the extension of Nineveh, the scene of the rapid conversion of the town and of the King, as likewise the series of adventures of Jonah in chapter IV, appear to better explain themselves in a fictitious story than according to strict reality” (col. 1.558).
Lastly, the article signifies that both positions are legitimate, and signals a few cautions for the reader’s use. “One must guard oneself with the greatest caution,” it says, making its own the words of Van Hoonacker (15), “from confusing traditional exegesis with dogmatic tradition.” “Dogmatic tradition,” it adds,
“has for its object the deposit of revelation: it is intangible. Traditional exegesis becomes dogmatic and obligatory interpretation in matters of faith and morals, when there is unanimous consensus of the Fathers of the Church (Council of Trent, Vatican I). Outside of this case, interpretations long common and universal may be, and at times in fact have been, found erroneous in parts unrelated to dogma” (col. 1.558).
In resolution, the arguments for negating the historicity of Jonah are reduced to four: the words of Jesus Christ (Matth., 12, 39-42; Luc., 11, 29-32), in so far as they may be understood very well even though the episodes of Jonah and of the Ninivites be a parable; the testimonies of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and Theophylact, which positively confirm that which one may already deduce from the nature of the material, namely, that this is a question of mere opinion; the very composition of the narration which shows it to be a symbolic and didactic writing, through the omission of certain details as well as the exaggeration of others; and, finally, the authority of wise and respectable Catholic exegetes.
We will now analyze these arguments, in order.
Regarding the first, one may be assured that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ (Matth., 12, 39-42; Luc., 11, 29-32) presuppose the episodes of Jonah and the Ninivites to be completely historical.
Firstly, thus the obvious sense persuades us, and with such lucidity, that there is almost a danger of obscuring the truth with the explanations themselves. Here is the sacred text [in the DRV, B. D.]:
“Then some of the scribes and Pharisees answered him, saying: Master, we would see a sign from thee. Who answering said to them: An evil and adulterous generation seeketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but 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. The queen of the south shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold a greater than Solomon here” (Matth., 12, 39[sic]-42).“And the multitudes running together, he began to say: This generation is a wicked generation. It asketh a sign: and a sign shall not be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was a sign to the Ninivites; so shall the Son of man also be to this generation. The queen of the south shall rise in the judgment with the men of this generation and shall condemn them: because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon. And behold more than Solomon here. The men of Ninive shall rise in the judgment with this generation and shall condemn it; because they did penance at the preaching of Jonas. And behold more than Jonas here” (Luc., 11, 29-32).
We note that Solomon, his wisdom, the Queen of Sheba, her trip from a remote country, the person of Jonah, the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the universal judgment, all the others are historical; why should only Jonah’s stay in the belly of the whale and the conversion of the Ninivites be designated as pretend events, as parabolical adventures? What distinction, what clue in the sacred text gives this theory legitimacy?
In the second place, Jesus Christ, to justify His own cause and to reprove the notorious obstinacy of the Scribes and Pharisees, solemnly appeals to the great day of the universal judgment, in which to the face of all peoples the Ninivites will rise to confound with the example of their penitence the hard-hearted unbelief of that race, unruly and unfaithful, rebellious against all persuasion. Well now, is it believable that in such a solemn assertion, made before the most unruly adversaries, those most disposed to distort the truth, the Savior could have recourse, for the vindication of His cause, to an imaginary episode, a fictitious conversion, manifestly fantastic precisely due to its incredibility? For this is what those who deny the historic character of Jonah affirm. “The scene of the rapid conversion of the city and the King,” writes Condamin, “is better understood, it appears, as a fictitious narration” (16). “Of all the elements of the story,” says Reuss, “that of the penitence of the Ninivites is the most undoubtedly fictitious, the product of pure invention” (17). “[T]he repentance of the city of Nineveh,” adds Konig, “is depicted with such grotesque features that the intention of the writer to indicate the didactic [that is to say, non historical] tendency of the narrative appears sufficiently clear.” (18). On the other hand, could not the Lord find in the treasures of His wisdom another example in all of history, but only that of the Queen of Sheba, and then a fake one, that of the conversion of the Ninivites, with which to accompany it? And this asserting both in the same manner, without showing any indication that He alluded in the second case to a fiction?
Neither is the objection of Lazarus valid. For in the case of Lazarus (the one of the parable), precisely due to the clear indicators which the story gives, there has always been debate in the Church concerning the greater or lesser symbolic character of that narration; wherefore that example can not be applied to the present case. Still less the other reply, that “common language draws absolute terms from writings whose non-historical character is recognized by all.” For no one, no one who is known, among the Jews at that time thought the episodes to which the Savior alluded to be imaginary. Rather the contrary, they took them as truthful; as many testimonies as remain to us from those ages make this clear, such as the brief, but not depreciable, testimony of the apocryphal third book of Maccabees (6, 8), that which the Pharisee historian Flavius Josephus gives in his Atiquities (Ant. IX, x, 2), significant for many judgments, and the no less illustrious than explicit testimony of the Palestinian apologist St. Justin (19), without counting many other, less direct testimonies from the first Christian centuries (20).
Neither is it valid to reply that Jesus Christ adapted Himself to, without participating in, the false opinion of His interlocutors. For of such adaptation or ad hominem argument one does not discover the slightest vestige nor any phrase which would justify this interpretation, as would “you say” (Matth., 16, 2), “you have heard it said” (Matth., 5, 43) or other equivalent; rather the circumstances, which we have already examined, of the context, and especially the unequivocal assertions of the Savior, assertions with no restriction whatsoever: solemn, clear, and repeated, positively militate against it.
Passing now to the argument of the patristic tradition, the only testimonies which are alleged against historicity are two: that of St. Gregory of Nazianzus and that of Theophylact.
Theophylact lacks the authority to be opposed to the true patristic tradition, seeing that he was not a Holy Father, nor even Catholic, but a schismatic writer and of a late age (XI-XII centuries).
The testimony of St. Gregory of Nazianzus is taken from a passage where the Saint discloses having heard from a man “skilled in these subjects, and able to grasp the depth of the prophet,” that Jonah fled in sorrow upon seeing that the prophetic grace, abandoning Israel, passed to the Gentiles. I will transcribe, in totality (including emphasis), what Condamin writes on this particular:
“St. Gregory of Nazianzus resumes the interpretation that was then proposed to him by the ‘skilled’ person of whom he speaks, ‘able to grasp the depth of the prophet’: ‘Jonah,’ he says, did not ‘imagine that he could utterly escape the Divine power; this we are not to believe: but when he saw the falling away of Israel, and perceived the passing over of the grace of prophecy to the Gentiles-this was the cause of his retirement from preaching and of his delay in fulfilling the command; accordingly he left the watchtower of joy, for this is the meaning of Joppa in Hebrew, I mean his former dignity and reputation, and flung himself into the deep of sorrow: and hence he is tempest-tossed, and falls asleep, and is wrecked, and aroused from sleep, and taken by lot, and confesses his flight, and is cast into sea, and swallowed, but not destroyed, by the whale; but there he calls upon God, and, marvelous as it is, on the third day he, like Christ, is delivered: but my treatment of this topic must stand over, and shall shortly, if God permit, be more deliberately worked out’ (P.G., t. XXXV, col. 505-508, Orat. II Apolog., 107-109). The departure, therefore, from Joppa, the sea voyage, and the whole series of adventures of Jonah are metaphorical and allegorical in this interpretation, which is perfectly agreeable to St. Gregory, judging by the praises he gives to its author and by the desire he shows of developing it” (21).
That the interpretation be allegorical is manifest. But there are two classes of allegorical interpretation: the literal-allegorical, which negates the historic sense, and the spiritual or mystical-allegorical, which presupposes it. Well now, which of the two does the Saint treat of? For our illustrious author, it appears evident that it is the first. Therefore, without doubt, neither does he add proofs nor mention the contrary possibility; which, notwithstanding, is adopted without vacillation by such famed specialists on the works of the Nazianzen as his commentator Elijah, Archbishop of Crete (22), and the learned translator of both, the Benedictine J. Billius (23). And one can not deny that presumption favors them; for, dealing with the patristic exegesis of Jonah, the examples of allegory in the mystic sense are counted, without any exaggeration, by the hundreds (only St. Jerome (24) and St. Maximus the Confessor (25) supply a copious number), while of allegory in the literal sense we would have in our case the first, and only, known example.
But of which be the mind of St. Gregory there is no doubt: the same, in the introduction to the passage that is objected, expressly declares that he will recur to a history, unlike “the legends and the Greeks, who think but little of the truth, and enchant ear and mind by the charm of their fictions and the daintiness of their style” (26). How, then, will he immediately contradict himself, affirming in equivalent terms: I have warned you that I will treat of a true history; but know that a learned man, profound specialist of the prophetic sense, assures that the whole thing is fiction, that none of it really happened? Is it admissible to impute this to such a vigorous reasoner as St. Gregory the Theologian? Especially since not only on this occasion, but on many others (27) he showed always to admit as indubitably historical the adventures of the prophet of Nineveh.
The Nazianzen does not form, consequently, an exception to the unanimity of tradition, but rather confirms it brilliantly.
This unanimity, on the other hand, is truly surprising: for not a single example in all of Catholic tradition is demonstrated against it; and, on the other hand, the Holy Fathers who profess the historicity of Jonah are so authoritative, so numerous, and of such diverse times and regions, that it would be superfluous to detain ourselves on that which no one ignores and is plainly manifest.
But at the end, it is said, they treat of a merely literary point, indifferent as far as doctrine is concerned; and, therefore, their authority is not imposed (28). Yet let us see if this assertion is so justified and inoffensive.
The book of Jonah contains a renowned prophecy of the resurrection of the Savior; a prophecy, it is true, in the typological sense, but not therefore less certain and splendorous. Above all, Jesus Christ Himself testified that there existed between His Resurrection and the portent of Jonah in the whale a unique similarity, asserting (Matth., 12, 40) that 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; and the Holy Fathers expressly confess as indubitable, in the liberation of Jonah, a prophetic similarity to the Resurrection of Jesus, and they declare and amplify this prophecy on numerous occasions. Thus, to not cite less celebrated names, attest, for example, Origen (29) and Tertullian (30), St. Cyprian (31) and St. Athanasius (32), St. Basil (33) and St. John Chrysostom (34), St. Hilary (35), St. Ambrose (36), and St. Augustine (37). A “very clear and plainly manifest” prophecy, St. Gregory of Nyssa names it (38). St. Cyril of Jerusalem inculcates it in the catechumens as a renowned prediction (39), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (40) and St. Isidore (41) commemorate it upon enumerating the sacred books, St. Maximus of Turin (42), Basil of Seleucia (43), St. Peter Chrysologus (44), and St. Zeno of Verona (45) exalt it with entire homilies, and, finally, St. Ephrem, St. Jerome, St. Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, Rupert, and Haymon diligently note it in their commentaries: that is, all the patristic commentators on Jonah; even the heresiarch Theodore of Mopsuestia (46), so hesitant to admit prophecies, recognizes it in this case and praises it excellently. This is a singularly renowned prophecy, not only for prophesying the Resurrection of the Savior, but for being, among all the predictions of the Old Testament, the most certain and clear, wherein is predicted the circumstance of the Resurrection on the third day.
Well, one need only deny the historicity of Jonah, and such a guaranteed prophecy totally disappears for lack of a basis in the typological sense, and with it disappears one of the most stupendous miracles of all of revealed history: that of the marvelous stay of the prophet for three days and three nights in the bowels of the marine monster. How can one judge such a prophecy and such a miracle to be an indifferent thing? [i.e. not pertaining to dogma, B.D.]
If it were so indifferent, why are so many heretics so determined to deny it? Why do they excogitate so many systems to combat that miracle, or better, mass of miracles, devouring therefore the most harebrained hypotheses? (47). Is it not because they perceive it to be a very different thing, for the sake of the doctrine that is supposed, to come up against a fiction versus against a reality, in which the teaching is corroborated by the miracle and the prophecy, united to make manifest with their dazzling light the wisdom, the power, the glory, and the mercy of God?
And the Holy Fathers, would they, as they do, defend the historicity of the episodes of Jonah so forcefully and earnestly if they thought it only a literary question, an indifferent point? Indeed, when St. Augustine was consulted as to whether the sojourn of Jonah in the whale was reality or figure, he responded “either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed”; and he continues to copiously illustrate his response (48). Let us note that a genius like the bishop of Hippo, after carefully studying the question, does not perceive even a glimmer of doubt as to the reality of the miracle discussed; and this in trying to satisfy a friend (though a pagan) who felt special difficulty in accepting that portent, a friend whom the Saint desired to convert, and on whom he surely would not place any obligation that he did not hold as very certain.
St. Jerome, a wholly authoritative witness to tradition, as one who knew what Greek and Latin authors had commented on Jonah prior to him (49), writes:
“Nor do I forget the people to whom it may seem incredible that a man could live, for three days and nights, in the belly of a whale, wherein the shipwrecked are digested. Certainly they will be either faithful [Christians] or infidels. If faithful, they will be required to accept much greater [miracles, St. Jerome uses Daniel 11 and Exodus 14 as examples, B.D.]...” If unfaithful, those who devour a thousand stupid fables have no reason to reject a true and honest miracle (50). To no one, therefore, does he permit the slightest doubt.
The same line of thought with the same conviction is developed excellently by St. Cyril of Alexandria (51).
His namesake St. Cyril of Jerusalem asserts: “For to me both are alike worthy of credence. I believe that Jonas was preserved, for all things are possible with God; I believe that Christ also was raised from the dead” (52). As one may see, a very clear and firm assertion.
St. John Chrysostom argued with no less firmness against the Marcionite heretics: “For tell me, was Jonah in the whale's belly a mere appearance? Nay, thou canst not say so. Therefore neither was Christ in the heart of the earth such” (53).
The reader will judge if these great Doctors, upon expressing themselves in this manner, believed themselves to be dealing with an indifferent subject, merely literary.
Finally, the so-called intrinsic proofs against historicity scarcely withstand the slightest scrutiny. That the work shows a didactic purpose does not militate against its being historical; rather, all things being equal, one better imparts a doctrine with real examples than with pretend ones. That the writer omits secondary details, for example, the name of the King, likewise proves nothing, unless we also reject the historicity of Genesis or of Exodus, for they do not mention the names of the Pharaohs with whom Joshua and Moses dealt. That the acts narrated in the book are more easily conceived as happening in a parable than in a history is an assertion as gratuitous as it is unjustified. If it were easier, what vision did the greatest geniuses of the Catholic Church have, that they did not perceive it? What manner of parable did the writer compose, that nobody noticed for a space of twenty five centuries?
One cannot fail to recognize that, above all, when they have against them the incomparable power of tradition, these intrinsic proofs are very feeble, such that an author as grave as Cornely calls them “diminutive reasons” and “trifles” (ratiunculae, futilia) (54).
And now we are at the end of our labor. The reasons on the contrary have been examined, and notwithstanding the consideration due to the Catholic authors who have proposed them, in conclusion the judgment of tradition alone appears to us commendable and true.
NOTES
(1) J. Doller, Das Buch Jona, Wien und Leipzig, 1912, prologue, p. V.
(2) Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Tubingen, 1912, p. 440.
(3) The International Critical Commentary.
(4) J. A. Bewer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jonah, Edinburgh, 1912, pp. 3-4.
(5) Van Hoonacker, Les Douze Petits Prophetes traduits et commentes, Paris, 1908, pp. 312-338.
(6) Meinertz, Jesus und die Heidenmission, Munster i. W., 1908, p. 32.
(7) Revue pratique d’Apologetique, Vol. IX (1909), pp. 923-928; Vol. X (1910), pp. 881-900.
(8) Holzhey, Kurzgefasstes Lehrbuch der speziellen Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Paderborn, 1912, p. 188.
(9) Condamin, “Jonah” in D’Ales, Dictionnaire Apologetique de la Foi Catholique, Vol. 2, col. 1,546-1,549.
(10) Loc. Cit., col 1,552
(11) Lower we will transcribe these entire texts.
(12) These are the words of Van Hoonacker (Lez Douze Petits Prophetes, p. 323), reproduced by the author.
(13) Orat. II Apolog., n. 107-109 (Migne, Vol. 35, col. 505-508).
(14) Enarratio in Ionam; versus finem (M. 126, 960-964).
(15) Lez Douze Petits Prophetes, p. 325
(16) Dict. Apolog., Vol. 2, col. 1,558.
(17) According to Condamin’s citation, loc. cit., col. 1,547
(18) E. Konig, “Jonah” in Hastings, Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. 2, p. 750. See also Van Hoonacker, Lez Douze Petits Prophetes, pp. 315-316
(19) Dial. Cum. Tryph., n. 107-108 (M. 6, 724-725).
(20) For example, St. Clement of Rome, Epist. I ad Cor., n. 7 (M. 1, 226); St. Irenaeus, Contra haer., lib. III, cap. 20 (m. 7, 942); lib. V, cap. 5 (M. 7, 1,135);
Tertullian, De Carnis resurrect., n. 32 and 58 (M. 2, 840, 880-881); Clement of Alexandria, Stromatum, lib. 1, n. 21 (M. 8, 141); Origen, Hom. 18 in ler. (M. 13, 496-497); Hom. 6 in Ezech., n. 2 (M. 13, 710), etc.
(21) Condamin, “Jonah” in D’Ales, Dictionn. Apolog., Vol. 2, col. 1,156.
(22) Comm. In Orat. I [II] S. Greg. Naz., n. 179-182, 185 (S. Greg. Naz., Opera, Edit. I. Billii et F. Morellii, Vol. 2, Parisiis, 1611, col. 224-230, 234).
(23) Loc. praec.
(24) Comm. in Ionam. (M. 25, 1,117-1,152).
(25) Quaestiones ad Thalassium, q. 64 (M. 90, 694-727).
(26) Orat. II Apolog., n. 104 (M. 35, 504).
(27) Orat. 43, in laudem Basilii M., n. 74 (M. 36, 595); Orat. 16 in Patrem tacentem, n. 14 (M. 35, 954); Poemat., lib. II, sect. I, carm. I, de rubis suis, v. 5-6 (M. 37, 969);
carm. 41, v. 34 ss. (M. 37, 1,395); carm. 68, v. 60 ss. (M. 37, 1,413); carm. 46, v. 43 (M. 37, 1,381), etc.
(28) Dictionn. Apolog., Vol. 2, col. 1,558. We have reproduced the passage above.
(29) Comm. in Matth., Vol. 12, n. 3 (M. 13, 979).
(30) De pudicitia, cap. 10 (M. 2, 999).
(31) Testim. adv. Iudaeos, lib. I, cap. 25 (M. 4, 717).
(32) Orat. III contra Arian., n. 23 (M. 26, 570-571).
(33) Comm. in Is., ad 7, 10 (M. 30, 459).
(34) Hom. 43 in Matth. (M. 57, 57, 455-463).
(35) Comm. in. Matth., cap. 16, n. 2 (M. 9, 1,008).
(36) In ps. 43, n. 83-85 (M. 14, 1,129-1,130).
(37) De civit. Dei, lib. XVIII, cap. 30 (M. 41, 587).
(38) Orat. I in Christi resurr. (M. 46, 605).
(39) Catech. 14, n. 20 (M. 33, 850).
(40) Poem., lib. II, sect. II, carm. 8, ad Seleuc., v. 279-280 (M. 37, 1,595).
(41) Prooemia in lib. V. et N. T., De Iona (M. 83, 171).
(42) Hom. 55, De Pasch I (M. 57, 355-360).
(43) Orat. 13, in Ionam (M. 85, 171-181).
(44) Serm. 37, de Ionae signo (M. 52, 303-306).
(45) Tractat., lib. II, tract. 17, De Iona (M. 11, 444-450).
(46) Comm. in Ionam, prolog. (M. 66, 317-327).
(47) One may see a large catalogue of them in Doller, Das Buch Jona, Wien, 1912, pp. 13-27.
(48) Epist. 102, ad Deogratias, quaest. VI (M. 33, 382-386).
(49) Comm. in Ionam, Prolog. (M. 25, 1,117).
(50) Comm. in Ionam, ad 2, 2 (M. 25, 1,132).
(51) Comm. in Ionam, ad 2, 1 (M. 71, 616-617).
(52) Catech. 14, n. 18 (M. 33, 847).
(53) Hom. 43 in matth., n. 2 (M. 57, 458).
(54) Hist. et crit. Introductio in U. T. libros sacr., II-2, Parisiis, 1897, pp. 562-563).
Catholic Apologetics International