Whale

VIEW:15 DATA:01-04-2020

WHALE.—1. tannîn. See Dragon (4). 2. dâg gâdôl, the ‘great fish’ of Jon_1:17, is in the LXX [Note: Septuagint.] and in Mat_12:40 rendered in Gr. by kçtos and tr. [Note: translate or translation.] ‘whale,’ though the Gr. word has a much wider significance. It is impossible to say what kind of fish is intended in the narrative. See, further, art. Jonah.
E. W. G. Masterman.
Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible
Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Published in 1909

Hebrew tannin, Greek keetos. Gen_1:21, translated "sea monsters." The crocodile in Eze_29:3; Eze_32:2; the "dragon" in Isa_27:1; tan means the crocodile; also Job_7:12. Jonah on the whale or sea monster in which he was miraculously preserved, type of Him over whose head for our sakes went all the waves and billows of God's wrath: Psa_42:7; Psa_69:2; Gal_3:13). (See JONAH.)
Fausset's Bible Dictionary
By Andrew Robert Fausset, co-Author of Jamieson, Fausset and Brown's 1888.

Whale. As to the signification of the Hebrew terms tan and tannin, variously rendered, in the Authorized Version, by "dragon," "whale," "serpent," "sea-monster." See Dragon. It remains for us in this article to consider the transaction recorded in the book of Jonah, of that prophet having been swallowed up by "some great fish" which in Mat_12:40 is called cetos (ketos), rendered in our version by "whale."
In the first glace, it is necessary to observe that the Greek word cetos, used by St. Matthew is not restricted in its meaning to "a whale," or any Cetacean; like the Latin cete or cetus, it may denote any sea-monster, either "a whale," or "a shark," or "a seal," or "a tunny of enormous size."
Although two or three species of whale are found in the Mediterranean Sea, yet the "great fish" that swallowed the prophet cannot properly be identified with any Cetacean, for, although the sperm whale has a gullet sufficiently large to admit the body of a man, yet, it can hardly be the fish intended, as the natural food of Cetaceans consists of small animals,such as medusae and crustacea.
The only fish, then, capable of swallowing a man would be a large specimen of the white shark (Carcharias vulgaris), that dreaded enemy of sailors, and the most voracious of the family of Squalidae. This shark, which sometimes attains the length of thirty feet, is quite able to swallow a man whole.
The whole body of a man in armor has been found in the stomach of a white shark: and Captain King, in his survey of Australia, says he had caught one which could have swallowed a man with the greatest ease. Blumenbach mentions that a whole horse has been found in a shark, and Captain Basil Hall reports the taking of one in which, besides other things, he found the whole skin of a buffalo which a short time before had been thrown overboard from his ship (p. 27). The white shark is not uncommon in the Mediterranean.
Smith's Bible Dictionary
By Dr. William Smith.Published in 1863

תן and תנין , Gen_1:21; Job_7:12; Eze_32:2; κητος, Mat_12:40; the largest of all the inhabitants of the water. A late author, in a dissertation expressly for the purpose, has proved that the crocodile, and not the whale, is spoken of in Gen_1:21. The word in Job_7:12, must also be taken for the crocodile. It must mean some terrible animal, which, but for the watchful care of Divine Providence, would be very destructive. Our translators render it by dragon in Isa_27:1, where the prophet gives this name to the king of Egypt: “He shall slay the dragon, that is in the sea.” “The sea there is the river Nile, and the dragon the crocodile, Eze_32:2. On this passage Bochart remarks, “The תנין is not a whale, as people imagine; for a whale has neither feet nor scales, neither is it to be found in the rivers of Egypt; neither does it ascend therefrom upon the land; neither is it taken in the meshes of a net; all of which properties are ascribed by Ezekiel to the תנין of Egypt. Whence it is plain that it is not a whale that is here spoken of, but the crocodile. Merrick supposes David, in Psa_74:13, to speak of the tunnie, a kind of whale, with which he was probably acquainted; and Bochart thinks it has its Greek name thannos from the Hebrew thanot. The last mentioned fish is undoubtedly that spoken of in Psa_104:26. We are told, that, in order to preserve the Prophet Jonah when he was thrown overboard by the mariners, “the Lord prepared a great fish to swallow him up.” What kind of fish it was, is not specified; but the Greek translators take the liberty to give us the word κητος, whale; and though St.
Mat_12:40, makes use of the same word, we may probably conclude that he did so in a general sense; and that we are not to understand it as an appropriated term, to point out the particular species of fish. It is notorious that sharks are common in the Mediterranean.
Biblical and Theological Dictionary by Richard Watson
PRINTER 1849.

hwāl: (1) κῆτος, kḗtos (Sirach 43:25 (the Revised Version (British and American) ?sea-monster?); The Song of Three Children verse 57 (the Revised Version (British and American) ?whale?); Mat_12:40 (the Revised Version (British and American) ?whale,? margin ?sea-monster?; the King James Version ?whale? throughout)). (2) תּנּין, tannı̄n (Gen_1:21; Job_7:12), ?sea-monster,? the King James Version ?whale.? (3) תּנּים, tannı̄m (Eze_32:2), ?monster,? the English Revised Version ?dragon? the King James Version ?whale? the King James Version margin ?dragon.?
It will be seen from the above references that the word ?whale? does not occur in the Revised Version (British and American) except in The Song of Three Children verse 57 and Mat_12:40. Kētos, the original word in these passages, is, according to Liddell and Scott, used by Aristotle for ?whale,? Aristotle using also the adjective κητώδης, kētṓdēs, ?cetacean?; Homer and Herodotus used kētos for any large fish or sea-monster or for a seal. It is used in Euripides of the monster to which Andromeda was exposed. In the Hebrew, in the Book of Jonah, we find dāgh or dāghāh, the ordinary word for ?fish?: ?And Yahweh prepared great fish to swallow up Jonah? (Jon_1:17). Whales are found in the Mediterranean and are sometimes cast up on the shore of Palestine, but it is not likely that the ancient Greeks or Hebrews were very familiar with them, and it is by no means certain that whale is referred to, either in the original Jonah story or in the New Testament reference to it. If any particular animal is meant, it is more likely a shark. Sharks are much more familiar objects in the Mediterranean than whales, and some of them are of large size. See FISH.
In Gen_1:21, ?And God created the great seamonsters? (the King James Version, ?whales?), and Job_7:12,
?Am I a sea, or a sea-monster (the King James Version ?whale?),
That thou settest a watch over me??
The Hebrew has tannı̄n, which word occurs 14 times in the Old Testament and in the American Standard Revised Version is translated ?monster,? ?sea-monster,? or ?serpent,? and, exceptionally, in Lam_4:3, ?jackals.? the King James Version renders in several passages ?dragon? (compare Eze_29:3 the English Revised Version).
Tannı̄m in Eze_29:3 and Eze_32:2 is believed to stand for tannı̄n. the American Standard Revised Version has ?monster,? the English Revised Version ?dragon,? the King James Version ?whale,? the King James Version margin ?dragon,? in Eze_32:2, and ?dragon? in Eze_29:3. Tannı̄m occurs in 11 other passages, where it is considered to be the plural of tann, and in the Revised Version (British and American) is translated ?jackals,? in the King James Version ?dragons? (Job_30:29; Psa_44:19; Isa_13:22; Isa_34:13; Isa_35:7; Isa_43:20; Jer_9:11; Jer_10:22; Jer_14:6; Jer_49:33; Jer_51:37). In Mal_1:3 we find the feminine plural tannōth. See DRAGON; JACKAL.

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
PRINTER 1915.

Whale occurs in several places of the Old Testament, and once in the New Testament. In the passages where scales and feet are mentioned as belonging to the animals so designated, commentators have shown that the crocodile is intended, which then is synonymous with the leviathan; and they have endeavored also to demonstrate, where they draw the dugs to suckle their young, that seals are meant, although cetacea nourish theirs in a similar manner. It may be doubted whether, in most of the cases, the poetical diction points absolutely to any specific animal, particularly as there is more force and grandeur in a generalized and collective image of the huge monsters of the deep, not inappropriately so called, than in the restriction to anyone species, since all are in Gen_1:26 made collectively subservient to the supremacy of man. But criticism is still more inappropriate when, not contented with pointing to some assumed species, it attempts to rationalize miraculous events by such arguments; as in the case of Jonah, where the fact of whales having a small gullet, and not being found in the Mediterranean, is adduced to prove that the huge fish was not a cetacean, but a shark! It may be observed, besides, of cetaceous animals, that though less frequent in the Mediterranean than in the ocean, they are far from being unknown there.




The Popular Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature
by John Kitto.

Eze_32:2 (b) This great fish is a type of the nations that swallowed Israel, will keep them suffering in bondage, and afterwards expel them out of the many countries back into their own land. This type is seen more graphically illustrated in the book of Jonah. Egypt was one of those nations that endeavored to swallow up Israel.

Mat_12:40 (b) This again is a type of the nations of the world who have swallowed up Israel, but have not been able to digest her, nor absorb her. One day all the nations will expel the Jewish people, and send them back into their own land.
Wilson's Dictionary of Bible Types
press 1957.


the rendering in the A. V. (besides κῆτος, Mat_12:40) of two very closely related Heb. terms: תָּן, tan (or rather תִּנַּים, tannim', as a sing., Eze_32:2; “dragon,” Eze_29:3; elsewhere as a plural and rendered “dragons,” Job_30:29; Psa_44:19; Isa_13:22; Isa_34:13; Isa_35:7; Isa_42:20; Jer_9:11; Jer_10:22; Jer_14:6; Jer_49:33; Jer_51:37), and תִּנַּין, tannnin' (Gen_1:21; Job_7:12; “serpent,” Exo_7:9-10; Exo_7:12; “sea- monster,” Lam_4:3; elsewhere also “dragon,” Deu_32:33; Neh_2:13; Psa_74:13; Psa_91:13; Psa_148:7; Isa_27:1; Isa_5:9; Jer_51:34). The texts where these are used in general present pictures of ruined cities and of desolation in the wilderness, rendering it difficult to determine what kind of creatures in particular are meant, except as may be inferred from other passages (Job_30:29; Psa_44:19-20; Isa_13:22; Isa_34:13; Isa_35:7; Jer_9:11; Jer_10:22; Jer_49:33; Jer_51:34; Jer_51:37). Where the term is associated with beasts or birds of the desert, it clearly indicates serpents of various species, both small and large (Isa_43:20; Psa_91:13; also Exo_6:9-12), and in one passage a poisonous reptile is distinctly referred to (Deu_32:33). SEE SERPENT.
In Jer_14:6, where wild asses snuffing up the wind are compared to dragons, the image will appear in its full strength, if we understand by dragons great boas and python-serpents, such as are figured in the Presenting mosaics. They were common in ancient times, and are still far from rare in the tropics of both continents. Several of the species grow to an enormous size, and, during their periods of activity, are in the habit of raising a considerable portion of their length into a vertical position, like pillars, ten or twelve feet high, in order to survey the vicinity above the surrounding bushes, while with open jaws they drink in a quantity of the current air. The same character exists in smaller serpents; but it is not obvious, unless when, threatening to strike, they stand on end nearly three fourths of their length. Most, if not all, of these species are mute, or can utter only a hissing sound; and, although the malli-pambu, the great rock -snake of Southern Asia, is said to wail in the night, no naturalist has ever witnessed such a phenomenon, nor heard it asserted that any other boa, python, or serpent had a real voice; but they hiss, and, like crocodiles, may utter sounds somewhat akin to howling, a fact that will sufficiently explain the passage in Micah (Mic_1:8). When used in connection with rivers, the term probably signifies the crocodile (Psa_74:13; Isa_27:1; Isa_51:9; Eze_29:3; Eze_32:2), and when allusion is had to larger bodies of water, probably some of the cetaceous mammalia (Gen_1:21; Psa_148:7; Lam_4:3). SEE LEVIATHAN.
The above interpretation is according to that of Bochart (Hieroz. 2, 429), who proposes always to read תִּנַּיןin the sense of huge serpents; but others, following Rab. Tafichum Hieros., suggest a different etymology for the plur. forms תִּנַּיםand תִּנַּין(the isolated case of a sing. form תִּנַּים, in, Eze_29:3, being taken for a corrupt reading for תִּנַּין, as in some MSS.), from the root תָּנִן, in the tropical sense of stretched out in running, and applied to the jackal, a swift animal, which answers well to the description where these forms occur, being a creature living in deserts (Psa_44:19; Isa_13:22; Isa_34:13; Isa_35:7; Isa_43:20; Jer_9:11; Jer_10:22; Jer_14:6; Jer_49:33; Jer_51:37), suckling its young (Lam_4:3), and uttering a wailing cry (Job_20:29; Mic_1:8). The other passages in which the forms, sing. תִּנַּין, plur. תִּנַּינַים, occur are thus left to be explained as before, namely, as signifying,
(1) a great fish or sea-monster, e.g. a whale, shark, etc. (Gen_1:21; Job_7:12; Isa_27:1; Psa_145:3; Psa_145:7.);
(2) a serpent, either in general (Exo_7:9-12; Deu_32:33; Psa_91:13), or specially a “dragon” (Jer_51:34), or the crocodile (Psa_74:13), put as a symbol of Egypt (Eze_29:3, according to the true reading; also Eze_32:2). SEE DRAGON.
“In the passages where scales and feet are mentioned as belonging to the tan, commentators have shown that ‘the crocodile is intended, which then is synonymous with the leviathan; and, they have endeavored also to demonstrate, where tannin draw the dugs to suckle their young, that seals are meant, although cetacea nourish theirs in a similar manner. It may be doubted whether in most of the cases the poetical diction points absolutely to any specific animal, particularly as there is more force and grandeur in a generalized and collective image of the huge monsters of the deep, not inappropriately so called, than in the restriction to any one species, since all are in Gen_1:26 made collectively subservient to the supremacy of man. But criticism is still more inappropriate when, not contented with pointing to some assumed species, it attempts to rationalize miraculous events by such arguments; as in the case of Jonah, where the fact of whales having a small gullet and not being found in the Mediterranean is adduced to prove that the huge fish דָּג, dâg, was not a cetacean, but a shark! Now, if the text be literally taken, the transaction is plainly miraculous, and no longer within the sphere of zoological discussion; and if it be allegorical, as some, we think, erroneously assume, then, whether the prophet was saved by means of a kind of boat called dâg, or it be a mystical account of initiation where the neophite was detained three days in an ark or boat figuratively denominated a fish, or Celtic avanc, the transaction is equally indeterminate; and it assuredly would be derogating from the high dignity of the prophet's mission to convert the event into a mere escape by boat or into a pagan legend such as Hercules, Bacchus, Jemshfd, and other deified heroes of the remotest antiquity are fabled to have undergone, and which all the ancient mysteries, including the Druidical, symbolized.
It may be observed, besides, of cetaceous animals that, though less frequent in the Mediterranean than in the ocean, they are far from being unknown there. Joppa, now Jaffa, the very place whence Jonah set sail, displayed for ages in one of its pagan temples huge bones of a species of whale, which the legends of the place pretended were those of the dragon monster slain by Perseus, as represented in the Arkite mythus of that hero and Andromeda, and which remained in that spot till the conquering Romans carried them in triumph to the great city. Procopius mentions a huge sea-monster in the Propontis, taken during his prefecture of Constantinople, in the 36th year of Justinian (A.D. 562), after having destroyed vessels at certain intervals for more than fifty years.
Rondoletius enumerates several whales stranded or taken on the coasts of the Mediterranean; these were most likely all orcas, physeters, or canpedolios, i.e. toothed whales, as large and more fierce than the nysticetes, which have balein in: the mouth, and at present very rarely make their way farther south than the Bay of Biscay; though in early times it is probable they visited the Mediterranean, since they have been seen within the tropics. In the Syrian seas, the Belgian pilgrim Lavaers, on his passage from Malta to Palestine, incidentally mentions a ‘Tonynvisch,' which he further denominates an oil-fish, longer than the vessel, leisurely swimming along, and which the seamen said prognosticated bad weather. On the island of Zerbi, close to the African coast, the late Commander Davies, R.N., found the bones of a cachalot on the beach. Shaw mentions an orca more than sixty feet in length stranded at Algiers; and the late Admiral Ross Donelly saw one in the Mediterranean near the island of Albaran.
There are, besides, numerous sharks of the largest species in the seas of the Levant, and also in the Arabian Gulf and Red Sea, as well as cetacea, of which Balcena bitan is the largest in those seas, and two species of halicore or dugong, which are herbivorous animals, intermediate between whales and seals. Much criticism has been expended on the scriptural 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 remarks of those writers who ground their objections upon the denial of miracle, it is obvious that this is not the place for discussion; the question of Jonah in the fish's belly will share the same fate as any other miracle recorded in the Old Test. (See Herttenstein, De Pisce qui Jonam Devoravit [Vitemb. 1705].) The reader will find in Rosenmüller's Prolegomena 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 Godfrey Less, who supposed that the fish' was no animal at all, but a ship with the figure of a fish painted on the stern, into which Jonah was received after he had been cast out of his own vessel! Equally curious is the explanation of G. C. Anton, who endeavored to solve the difficulty by 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 Rosenmüller, that the whole account is founded on the Phoenician 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 Greek word κῆτος, used by Matthew, is not restricted in its meaning to ‘a whale,' or any cetacean; like the Latin cete or cetus, it may denote any sea-monster, either ‘a whale,' or ‘a shark,' or a ‘seal,' or ‘a tummy of enormous size' (see Athen. p. 303 b [ed. Dindorf]; Odys. 12:97; 4:446, 452; Iliad, 20:147). Although two or three species of whale are found in the Mediterranean Sea, yet the ‘great fish' that swallowed the prophet cannot properly be identified .with any cetacean, for, although the sperm- whale (Catodon macrocephalus) has a gullet sufficiently large to admit the body of a man, yet it can hardly be the fish intended; as the natural food of cetaceans consists of small animals, such as medussa and crustacea.
Nor, again, can we agree with bishop Jebb (Sacred Literature, p. 178, 179) that the κοιλία of the Greek Test. denotes the back portion of a whale'sr mouth, in the cavity of which' the prophet was concealed; for the whole passage in Jonah is clearly opposed to such an interpretation. The only fish, then, capable of swallowing a man would be a large specimen of the white shark (Carcharias vulgaris), that dreaded enemy of sailors, and the most voracious of the family of Squalide. This shark, which sometimes attains the length of thirty feet, is quite able to swallow a man whole. Some commentators are skeptical on this point. It would, however, be easy to quote passages from the writings of authors and travelers in proof of this assertion; we confine ourselves to two or three extracts.
The shark ‘ has a large gullet, and in the belly of it are sometimes found the bodies of men half eaten; sometimes whole and entire (Nature Displayed, 3, 140). But lest the abbé Pluche should not be considered sufficient authority, we give a quotation from Mr. Couch's recent publication, A History of the Fishes of the British Islands. Speaking of white sharks, this author, 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 they find a difficulty in doing this, there is no hesitation in passing into the stomach even what is of enormous bulk; and the formation of the jaws and throat render this a matter of but little difficulty.' Ruysch says that the whole body of a man in armor (loricatus) has been found in the stomach of a white shark; and Captain King, in his Survey of Australia, says he had caught one which could have swallowed a man with the greatest ease. Blumenbach mentions that a whole horse has been found in a shark, and Captain Basil Hall reports the taking of one in which, besides other things, he found the whole skin of a buffalo which a short time before had been thrown overboard from his ship (1, 27).
Dr. Baird, of the British Museum (Cyclop. of Nat. Sciences, p. 514), says that in the river Hooghly, below Calcutta, he had seen a white shark swallow a bullock's head and horns entire, and he speaks also of a ‘shark's mouth being sufficiently wide to receive the body of a man.' Wherever, therefore the Tarshish, to which Jonah's ship was bound, was situated, whether in Spain or in Cilicia or in Ceylon, it is certain that the common white shark might have been seen on the voyage. The C. vulgaris is not uncommon in the Mediterranean; it occurs, as Forskal (Descript. Animal. p. 20) assures us, in the Arabian Gulf, and is common also in the 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 belly, it is impossible to explain by simply natural causes. Certainly the preservation of Jonah in a fish's belly is not more remarkable than that of the three children in the midst of Nebuchadnezzar's ‘burning fiery furnace.' Naturalists have recorded that sharks have the habit of throwing up again whole and alive the prey they have seized (see Couch's Hist. of Fishes, 1, 33). ‘I have heard,' says Mr. Darwin, ‘ from Dr. Allen of Forres, that he has frequently found a Diodon floating 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 monster, which has been thus killed.”



CYCLOPEDIA OF BIBLICAL, THEOLOGICAL AND ECCLESIASTICAL
press 1895.

FACEBOOK

Participe de nossa rede facebook.com/osreformadoresdasaude

Novidades, e respostas das perguntas de nossos colaboradores