Swallowed by Bias

Jonah, Skeptics, and the Sea Creature That Won’t Go Away

“For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.”

— Matthew 12:40

The story of Jonah is one of the most recognized—and ridiculed—tales in the Bible. Skeptics often invoke it as a symbol of biblical “mythology,” assuming that the idea of a man being swallowed by a “whale” and surviving for three days is self-evidently absurd. But beneath the mockery lies a far more revealing issue: not the credibility of the story itself, but the assumptions critics bring to it. The burden of proof, as we’ll see, is heavier on the skeptic than they may realize.

If Jonah’s account is false, then the skeptic must do more than laugh dismissively. They must demonstrate at least six things:

That it is impossible for a human to be swallowed by a large sea creature.
That Jonah did not die and was not resurrected (since resurrection changes the framework entirely).
That in 1611, the word “whale” only meant what we now call cetaceans.
That the Hebrew and Greek words used in Jonah and Matthew strictly mean a modern whale and nothing else.
That the Bible cannot accommodate changes in language, even though all translations necessarily do.
Finally, they must pretend Jewish literary, cultural, and theological context does not matter—which ironically only reveals their own bias, not any flaw in the biblical text.

If even one of these tasks cannot be met, the case against Jonah falters. In reality, none of them can be met.

Could a Man Survive Inside a Sea Creature?

Let’s begin with the literal objection: that a person cannot survive being swallowed by a fish or sea creature. That’s not as settled a claim as critics like to pretend.

Historical cases exist—though rare—of people allegedly being swallowed by whales or large fish and surviving (several examples are listed below). The most famous is that of James Bartley, a 19th-century sailor who was reportedly found alive in the stomach of a sperm whale after the animal was harpooned. The veracity of this story has been debated, and it may well be apocryphal. But even if it were fictional, the fact that such an idea was considered plausible by both sailors and journalists in the 1800s tells us something: survival inside a massive sea creature, while extreme, is not logically or biologically impossible.¹

Moreover, some species of whale—such as the sperm whale—have throats large enough to swallow a human whole, unlike baleen whales (e.g., blue whales) whose throats are too narrow. Even large sharks (like the whale shark) and extinct marine animals could fit the role. Add to this the possibility that the creature was specially prepared by God (Jonah 1:17 explicitly says so), and the naturalistic objection collapses unless one assumes all miracles are impossible—a philosophical bias, not a scientific one.

If the skeptic dismisses the event solely because it is miraculous, then they are no longer making a scientific argument, but a metaphysical one against the possibility of divine action. That’s not disproving Jonah. It’s assuming materialism and calling it evidence.

Jonah May Have Died—and Been Raised

Another mistake skeptics make is assuming that Jonah survived inside the fish by purely natural means. But the Bible never insists on this.

In fact, Jonah’s prayer from inside the fish includes language that strongly suggests death and resurrection:

“Out of the belly of Sheol I cried, and you heard my voice” (Jonah 2:2).
“Yet you brought up my life from the pit, O Lord my God” (Jonah 2:6).

“Sheol” is not a metaphor for inconvenience—it is the realm of the dead in Hebrew thought. Jesus Himself links Jonah’s experience directly with His own resurrection in Matthew 12:40. So, far from being a tale of natural survival, Jonah’s story may be one of death and resurrection, which reframes the entire objection.²

Thus, the skeptic must prove Jonah did not die and was not raised. But how could they possibly know this? There is no evidence against it—only assumptions based on anti-supernatural bias.

What Did “Whale” Mean in 1611?

The objection that the King James Version (KJV) says “whale” in Matthew 12:40 and whales cannot swallow people rests on a flawed premise: that the word “whale” in 1611 meant exactly what it means today.

In truth, language evolves. In the early 17th century, “whale” could refer broadly to any large sea monster or enormous fish.³ The term was not limited to biological cetaceans as classified today. English dictionaries from the time used “whale” as a catch-all for great sea beasts, sometimes even mythical ones. Translators of the KJV weren’t making a scientific classification; they were using the common English term for what the Greek word kētos meant—a large sea creature.

To impose modern biological categories onto early modern English is anachronistic, and betrays either a misunderstanding of language or a desire to manufacture contradictions. Either way, it does not stand.

What Do the Hebrew and Greek Texts Actually Say?

The Hebrew word in Jonah 1:17 is דָּג גָּדוֹל (dag gadol), which literally means “great fish.” The word dag was used in ancient Hebrew for all kinds of sea creatures. There was no special word for “whale” in Hebrew; taxonomy as we know it didn’t exist. Likewise, Greek in Matthew 12:40 uses κήτους (kētos), a word that appears in Homer’s epics to describe sea monsters of various kinds.⁴ It does not mean “whale” in the modern zoological sense.

The Latin Vulgate rendered it as cetus, from which we get the scientific term cetacean—but even that, in ancient usage, did not mean what it does today (today cetacean refers to whales, dolphins, and porpoises only; but in ancient Latin literature cetus meant any large sea creature or monster). Words like cetus, kētos, and dag gadol were descriptive, not taxonomic. They conveyed size and habitat, not species classification.

So the argument that the Bible “got it wrong” because it used the wrong modern category collapses completely. The words used were correct in their original languages, and correctly translated for their time.

Does Language Change Undermine the Bible?

Another frequent objection is that if the meaning of words like “whale” changes over time, then translations of the Bible are untrustworthy.

But this misunderstands both translation and theology. The doctrine of inspiration applies to the original autographs, not to every translation. And even so, faithful translations seek to communicate what the original meant in the language of the target audience.

Thus, in 1611, “whale” was the correct rendering of kētos. Today, modern versions often use “great fish” or “sea creature” instead, reflecting linguistic shifts. This isn’t corruption—it’s honesty in translation. And since both the Hebrew and Greek are still accessible, there is no loss in meaning. The Bible’s integrity is not threatened by linguistic evolution; it’s preserved by textual and linguistic awareness.

To argue otherwise is to insist that every English word must be frozen in its 17th-century usage, which is clearly unreasonable.

What About Jewish Literary Context?

Skeptics also err by interpreting Jonah without regard to Jewish context. But Jonah is a deeply Jewish narrative, steeped in symbolism, prophetic tradition, and covenant themes.

The use of three days and three nights in Jewish idiom can mean any part of three days.⁵
Jonah’s role as a reluctant prophet mirrors broader prophetic traditions (e.g., Moses, Jeremiah).
His flight from God, descent to Sheol, and eventual obedience all reflect repentance motifs foundational to Hebrew theology.
The Ninevites’ repentance prefigures the Gentile mission and God’s mercy beyond Israel.

To reduce the story to “a man in a fish” is to miss the point—like reducing the story of the Prodigal Son to agricultural economics.

Interpreting Jonah without cultural sensitivity is like interpreting Shakespeare without understanding Elizabethan England. It distorts the meaning. The story of Jonah, like many biblical narratives, is told in a literary and theological framework that demands insight, not arrogance.

Additional Objections—and Their Shortcomings

“There’s no archaeological evidence Jonah existed.”
It’s true that we have no artifact labeled “Jonah son of Amittai, prophet of Israel,” but that’s not unusual for individuals who weren’t monarchs or military leaders. The same can be said for many figures in the ancient world whose existence is uncontested. However, what we do have is strong archaeological confirmation of the city Jonah was sent to: Nineveh.

For centuries, skeptics scoffed at the Bible’s claim that Nineveh was a massive, influential city. Critics insisted the Bible had exaggerated or invented it. But in the 19th century, British archaeologists Sir Austen Henry Layard and Hormuzd Rassam excavated the ruins of ancient Nineveh near modern-day Mosul, Iraq. They uncovered the palaces of Sennacherib and Ashurbanipal, massive city walls, cuneiform tablets, and monumental gates. These finds confirmed that Nineveh was indeed a capital of the Assyrian Empire and that it matched the biblical description as an “exceedingly great city” (Jonah 3:3).⁶

So while we don’t have a gravestone or tablet directly naming Jonah, the historical setting of his story has been verified. And when an entire city once thought fictional is proven to be real, it’s not unreasonable to grant the benefit of the doubt to the text—until proven otherwise.

“It contradicts science.”
This objection assumes the Bible claims something scientifically impossible—that a man survived inside a sea creature for three days. But this objection only holds weight if:

One assumes materialism (that miracles cannot happen),
One assumes Jonah didn’t die and was not resurrected,
One assumes that sea creatures large enough to swallow a human cannot exist, or that the one in Jonah was not specially prepared by God.

Let’s address each scientifically and historically.

Modern Biological Possibility

Some whales, like the sperm whale, have throats large enough to swallow humans whole. Their stomachs can hold a human-sized object, and they possess multiple chambers where a human body could reside without immediate digestion.
Whale sharks and basking sharks, though not aggressive or known to swallow humans, grow large enough that they could, in theory, engulf a person.
Extinct marine species such as the Leedsichthys or the Megalodon would have had more than sufficient size and anatomy to make such an incident plausible.

Historical and Modern Precedents

Michael Packàrd (2021) – A lobster diver in Cape Cod was engulfed by a humpback whale and survived. He reported being inside the whale’s mouth for 30–40 seconds before it spat him out. This modern, verified account proves that large whales can engulf humans whole, even if their throats can’t always accommodate them.⁷
James Bartley (1891) – Allegedly swallowed by a sperm whale and later found alive in its stomach. The story was widely circulated in religious literature but is now considered apocryphal due to lack of corroborating evidence. Nevertheless, the fact that such a story was believed plausible for decades reflects cultural acceptance of such an event in the maritime world.
The Falconer Case (1771) – A whaling crew reportedly found the intact body of a missing sailor inside a harpooned whale. Though he had died, the account suggests that a human body can be swallowed whole and preserved within a whale’s stomach for some time.
Maritime Legends and Cultural Echoes – Ancient and medieval cultures—Hebrew, Greek, Islamic, and maritime folk traditions—are filled with stories of people swallowed by sea creatures. While often embellished, they testify to a long-standing belief in the possibility of such events.

These accounts may not meet modern scientific standards of documentation, but their existence across centuries and cultures suggests that the story of Jonah was not seen as biologically implausible, even by those most familiar with the sea.

Scientific Misunderstanding or Theological Blindness?

Skeptics often claim that the Jonah account violates science—but that depends on what science they mean. If it’s biology, we’ve shown that the incident is not impossible. If it’s metaphysics, then the claim isn’t scientific at all.

Moreover, if Jonah died and was resurrected (as many believe the text implies), the issue is no longer biological but theological. And miracles—by definition—are not measured by natural law, but by divine intervention over it.

To reject Jonah’s story because it involves the supernatural is not a scientific critique—it’s a worldview commitment masquerading as one.

“It sounds too much like a myth.”
That’s subjective. What sounds mythic to a modern ear may be theological narrative in ancient literature. In fact, the simplicity and lack of embellishment in Jonah contrast sharply with actual myths. The fish is mentioned briefly—it’s not glorified or made central.

“It was borrowed from pagan myths.”
This claim, often made without real evidence, collapses upon examination. While other cultures had sea monster stories, that’s not proof of borrowing. Similar motifs exist across cultures (e.g., floods), but that may reflect common human fears and divine intervention, not plagiarism.

Final Thought

The story of Jonah is extraordinary, but not irrational. It involves a miraculous element, but it is presented as historical narrative with theological purpose. The real problem for many skeptics is not the fish, but the God behind the fish. And so, the story becomes a proxy for a larger rejection of divine authority.

But skepticism loses its power when it demands that ancient texts conform to modern scientific categories, linguistic assumptions, and cultural blindness. That’s not critical thinking—it’s chronological snobbery.

In fact, the more you examine the story of Jonah, the more it resists the simplistic mockery often thrown at it. It is the skeptic, not the believer, who must hold an increasingly implausible view:

That an ancient book got its sea creature taxonomy “wrong” by not anticipating Linnaean classification.
That every translation of a living language must remain immune to shifts in meaning.
That a theological narrative set in ancient Israel must conform to modern naturalistic assumptions.
That a man couldn’t be resurrected—while ignoring that the text may be claiming exactly that.
That cultural context can be ignored in favor of YouTube-level “debunkings.”

All of this reveals not that the Bible is untrustworthy, but that modern critics are often unwilling to do the interpretive work required for honest engagement.

I personally find it interesting that the very city once dismissed by critics as mythical now stands as one of archaeology’s greatest validations of Scripture. The ruins of Nineveh confirm what the Bible had already declared: that it was indeed a great city—powerful, expansive, and historically significant.

And while we may not yet have an inscription stating, “Jonah preached and we repented,” I have no hesitation believing that a prophet of God could move even the most brutal empire to repentance when God wills it. I am not persuaded by modern biases that assume ancient people were less thoughtful, less spiritual, or less capable of dramatic change than we are. In fact, I think it is we who are often less open to truth.

If anything, the story of Jonah and Nineveh reminds us that divine mercy can reach even the darkest places. And that, to me, is not a myth—but a message still relevant today.

Endnotes

¹ William R. Cooper, The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah (Creation Science Movement, 2008), 74–76.
² Michael Heiser, The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (Lexham Press, 2015), 220–221.
³ Oxford English Dictionary, “Whale,” 1611 usage, as cited in Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language(1755).
⁴ Liddell and Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, 9th ed., s.v. “kētos.”
⁵ Craig L. Blomberg, Jesus and the Gospels (B&H Academic, 2009), 281–82.
⁶ D. J. Wiseman, “Nineveh,” in The New Bible Dictionary, 3rd ed., ed. D. R. W. Wood et al. (InterVarsity Press, 1996), 849–851.
⁷ Associated Press, “Cape Cod Lobster Diver Says He Was Swallowed by a Humpback Whale,” NPR, June 12, 2021.

Mere Christianity for the Digital Age

Knowing God / What is Mere Christianity? / Basic Theology