Two results of criticism are widely accepted. One relates to the psalm in ch. ii., which has been transferred from some other place; it is in fact an anticipatory thanksgiving for the deliverance of Israel, mostly composed of phrases from other psalms. The other is that the narrative before us is not historical but an imaginative story (such as was called a Midrash) based upon Biblical data and tending to edification. It is, however, a story of high type. The narrator considered that Israel had to be a prophet to the "nations" at large, that Israel had, like Jonah, neglected its duty and for its punishment was "swallowed up" in foreign lands. God had watched over His people and prepared its choicer members to fulfil His purpose. This company of faithful but not always sufficiently charitable men represented their people, so that it might be said that Israel itself (the second Isaiah's "Servant of Yahweh"--see ISAIAH) had taken up its duty, but in an ungenial spirit which grieved the All-merciful One. The book, which is post-exilic, may therefore be grouped with another Midrash, the Book of Ruth, which also appears to represent a current of thought opposed to the exclusive spirit of Jewish legalism. Some critics, however, think that the key of symbolism needs to be supplemented by that of mythology. The "great fish" especially has a very mythological appearance. The Babylonian dragon myth (see COSMOGONY) is often alluded to in the Old Testament, e.g. in Jer. li. 44, which, as the present writer long since pointed out, may supply the missing link between Jonah i. 17 and the original myth. For the "great fish" is ultimately Tiamat, the dragon of chaos, represented historically by Nebuchadrezzar, by whom for a time God permitted or "appointed" Israel to be swallowed up. For further details see T. K. Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._, "Jonah"; and his article "Jonah, a Study in Jewish Folklore and Religion," _Theological Review_ (1877), pp. 211-219. König, Hastings's _Dict. Bible_, "Jonah," is full but not lucid; C. H. H. Wright, _Biblical Studies_ (1886) argues ably for the symbolic theory. Against Cheyne, see Marti's work on the _Minor Prophets_ (1894); the "great fish" and the "three days and three nights" remain unexplained by this writer. On these points see Zimmern, _K.A.T._ (3), pp. 366, 389, 508. The difficulties of the mission of a Hebrew prophet to Asshur are diminished by Cheyne's later theory, _Critica Biblica_ (1904), pp. 150-152. (T. K. C.)