From news@larry.rice.edu Wed Jul 8 14:24:41 1992 Received: from ncar.ucar.edu by aramis.rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) id AA15368; Wed, 8 Jul 92 14:24:41 EDT Received: from larry.rice.edu by ncar.ucar.EDU (5.65/ NCAR Central Post Office 04/10/90) id AA22352; Wed, 8 Jul 92 12:24:38 MDT Received: by larry.rice.edu (AA07137); Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:26:02 CDT Date: Wed, 8 Jul 92 13:26:02 CDT From: News Message-Id: <9207081826.AA07137@larry.rice.edu> To: soc-religion-christian@ncar.ucar.edu Status: R Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Path: rbutera From: rbutera@owlnet.rice.edu (Robert John Butera) Subject: Re: Jonah and the whaler Message-ID: <1992Jul8.182556.7093@rice.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University References: Date: Wed, 8 Jul 1992 18:25:56 GMT In article baresson@cbnewsi.att.com writes: >There is a well-documented case of a man being swallowed by a whale in >the vicinity of the Falkland Islands in February 1897. A large sperm [story of man staying alive in whale deleted] >Source from: A. Wilson "The sign of the prophet Jonah" >Princeton Theological Review 1927 Vol 25 p636 I think not. "A Whale of a Tale: Fundamentalist Fish Stories", in _Perspectives_On_ Science_and_Christian_Faith_, December 1991, has an article about this very story written by Edward B. Davis, Associate professor of Science and History, Messiah College, Graham, PA. Dr. Davis has done extensive research into the origins of this paticular story (about a sailor named James Bartley), its origins, and how it became incorporated into various evangelical books and tracts (including the text quoted above). He also traveled throughout the US and England locating the newspapers with any mention of such an occurence. To summarize his conclusions, the story is unwarranted. He says ... "I will state this more strongly; no one, repeat, no one, has given this story the kind of careful investigation it warrants if it is to be used as evidence for the reliability of scripture. Yet this is precisely what everyone citing the story assumes - that its authenticity has been established beyond a reasonable doubt, at least by de Parville if not others. A typical example comes from Ambrose John Wilson, whose account of the incident has probably been more widely read than any other. In a subsequent defense of his own purportedly thorough investigation, Wilson claimed that the episode had been 'elaborately investigated by M. de Parville, accepted in the _Journal_des_Debats_, and earlier by the Abbe Moine [sic] in the scientific journal _Kosmos_', where Coubret's article had appeared. But Coubret did no more than cite an account in the English papers, and de Parville did no more than cite Coubret. Why hadn't anyone dug deeper than this. I was beginning to harbor doubts about the authenticity of this whale of a tale." Dr. Davis performed a very thorough search. Different books listed the date as anywhere from 1891 to 1895. More importantly, in a letter to the _Expository_Times_ in 1906 written by Mrs. John Killam, wife of the captain of the _Star_of_the_East_ (Bartley's supposed ship), she writes: ".. there is not one word of truth in the whale story. I was with my husband all the years he was in the _Star_of_the_East_. There was never a man lost overboard while my husband was in her. The sailor has told a great sea yarn." Also, a listing of the crew obtained from the Maritime Archives listed no James Bartley as a crew member, or any similar name, for the voyage in question. After many other references (too numerous to list here), Dr. Davis finally writes "I realized then with finality that there simply was no whale at the end of my line, indeed that there never had been a whale, and that all of this was no more than a fish story, albeit a dandy." (BTW , Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith is a quarterly publication of the American Scientific Affiliation, and organization -- Rob Butera - ECE grad student Rice University, Houston, TX rbutera@rice.edu "... everybody gets the peer group they deserve." - Timothy Leary