[1403]Heb.and their hoofs he will tear(?).[1404]For Heb.האלילread as in ver. 15האוילי.[1405]עמית: only in Lev. and here.[1406]הך. Perhaps we should readאַכֶּה,I smite, with Matt. xxvi. 31.[1407]Some take this as a promise:turn My hand towards the little ones.[1408]LXX. Heb.אמרתי, but theוhas fallen from the front of it.[1409]See above, p.462.[1410]xii. 2,רַעַל, a noun not found elsewhere in O. T. We found the verb in Nahum ii. 4 (see above, p.106), and probably in Hab. ii. 16 forוהערל(see above, p. 147, n.412): it is common in Aramean; other forms belong to later Hebrew (cf. Eckardt, p. 85). 3,שׂרטis used in classic Heb. only of intentional cutting and tattooing of oneself; in the sense ofwoundingwhich it has here it is frequent in Aramean. 3 has besidesאבן מעמסה, not found elsewhere. 4 has three nouns terminating in־ון, two of them—תמהון,panic, andעורון, judicialblindness—in O. T. only found here and in Deut. xxviii. 28, the former also in Aramean. 7למען לאis also cited by Eckardt as used only in Ezek. xix. 6, xxvi. 20, and four times in Psalms.[1411]xii. 6,תחתיה.[1412]The text readsagainstJudah, as if it with Jerusalem suffered the siege of the heathen. But (1) this makes an unconstruable clause, and (2) the context shows that Judah wasagainstJerusalem. Therefore Geiger (Urschrift, p. 58) is right in deletingעל, and restoring to the clause both sense in itself and harmony with the context. It is easy to see whyעלwas afterwards introduced. LXX. καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ.[1413]Since Jerome, commentators have thought of a stone by throwing or lifting which men try their strength, what we call a “putting stone.” But is not the idea rather of one of the large stones half-buried in the earth which it is the effort of the husbandman to tear from its bed and carry out of his field before he ploughs it? Keil and Wright think of a heavy stone for building. This is not so likely.[1414]שׂרט, elsewhere only in Lev. xxi. 5, is there used of intentional cutting of oneself as a sign of mourning. Nowack takes the clause as a later intrusion; but there is no real reason for this.[1415]Heb.upon Judah will I keep My eyes opento protect him, and this has analogies, Job xiv. 3, Jer. xxxii. 19. But the readingits eyes, which is made by inserting aוthat might easily have dropped out through confusion with the initialוof the next word, has also analogies (Isa. xlii. 7, etc.), and stands in better parallel to the next clause, as well as to the clauses describing the panic of the heathen.[1416]Others readאַלְפֵי,thousands, i.e.districts.[1417]Heb.I will find me; LXX. εὑρήσομεν ἑαυτοῖς.[1418]Hebrew adds a gloss:in Jerusalem.[1419]The population in time of war.[1420]xii. 10,שׁפך רוח, not earlier than Ezek. xxxix. 29, Joel iii. 1, 2 (Heb.);תחנונים, only in Job, Proverbs, Psalms and Daniel;המר, an intrans. Hiph.; xiii. 1,מקור,fountain, before Jeremiah only in Hosea xiii. 15 (perhaps a late intrusion), but several times in post-exilic writings instead of pre-exilicבאר(Eckardt);נִדָּהonly after Ezekiel; 3, cf. xii. 10,דקר, chiefly, but not only, in post-exilic writings.[1421]See especially xii. 12 ff., which is very suggestive of the Priestly Code.[1422]Hist. Geog., Chap. XIX. On the nameplain of Megiddosee especially notes, p. 386.[1423]2 Chron. xxxv. 22 ff.[1424]Another explanation offered by the Targum is the mourning for “Ahab son of Omri, slain by Hadad-Rimmon son of Tab-Rimmon.”[1425]LXX. gives for Hadad-Rimmon only the second part, ῥοῶν.[1426]Ezek. viii. 14.[1427]Baudissin,Studien z. Sem. Rel. Gesch., I. 295 ff.[1428]Heb.Me; several codd.him: some readאֱלֵיto(him)whom they have pierced; but this would require the elision of the sign of the acc. beforewho. Wellhausen and others think something has fallen from the text.[1429]See above, p.482.[1430]LXX. Συμεών.[1431]Cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, xlvii. 1.[1432]Readאֲדָמָה קִנְיָנִיfor the Mass.אדם הקנני: so Wellhausen.[1433]Heb.between.[1434]But see below, p.490.[1435]ליהוה: orbelonging to Jehovah; or like theLamed auctorisor Lamed when construed with passive verbs (see OxfordHeb.-Eng. Dictionary, pp. 513 and 514, col. 1),from, by means of, Jehovah.[1436]Heb.:and ye shall flee, the ravine of My mountains. The text is obviously corrupt, but it is difficult to see how it should be repaired. LXX., Targ. Symmachus and the Babylonian codd. (Baer, p. 84) readוְנִסְתַּם,shall be closed, forוְנַסְתֶּם,ye shall flee, and this is adopted by a number of critics (Bredenkamp, Wellhausen, Nowack). But it is hardly possible before the next clause, which says the valley extends to ’Aṣal.[1437]Wellhausen suggests the ravine (גיא) of Hinnom.[1438]אָצַל, place-name: cf.אָצֵל, name of a family of Benjamin, viii. 37 f., ix. 43 f.; andבֵית הָאֵצֶל, Micah i. 11. Some would readאֵצֶל, the adverbnear by.[1439]Amos i. 1.[1440]LXX.[1441]LXX.; Heb.thee.[1442]Heb. Kethibh,יְקָרוֹת יִקְפָּאוּן,jewels(? hardly stars as some have sought to prove from Job xxxi. 26)grow deadorcongealed. Heb. Ḳerê,jewels and frost,וְקִפָּאוֹן. LXX. καὶ ψύχη καὶ πάγος,וְקָרוּת וְקִפָּאוֹן,and cold and frost. Founding on this Wellhausen proposes to readחוֹםforאוֹר, and renders,there shall be neither heat nor cold nor frost. So Nowack. But it is not easy to see howחוֹםever got changed toאוֹר.[1443]Uniqueorthe same?[1444]Taken as a gloss by Wellhausen and Nowack.[1445]עֲרָבָה, the name for the Jordan Valley, the Ghôr (Hist. Geog., pp. 482–484). It is employed, not because of its fertility, but because of its level character. Cf. Josephus’ name for it, “the Great Plain” (IV.Warsviii. 2; IV.Antt.vi. 1): also 1 Macc. v. 52, xvi. 11.[1446]Geba “long the limit of Judah to the north, 2 Kings xxiii. 8” (Hist. Geog., pp. 252, 291). Rimmon was on the southern border of Palestine (Josh. xv. 32, xix. 7), the present Umm er Rummamin N. of Beersheba (Rob.,B. R.).[1447]Orbe inhabited as it stands.[1448]Cf. “Mal.” iii. 24 (Heb.).[1449]Ezek. xxxviii. 21.[1450]So Wellhausen and Nowack.[1451]So LXX. and Syr. The Heb. text inserts anot.[1452]חטאת, in classic Heb.sin; but as in Num. xxxii. 23 and Isa. v. 18,the punishment that sin brings down.[1453]Hosea xiv. 3.[1454]ix. 10.[1455]So Wellhausen.[1456]ix. 10.[1457]Heb.Canaanite. Cf. Christ’s action in cleansing the Temple of all dealers (Matt. xxi. 12–14).[1458]Unless the Psalm were counted as such. See below, p.511.[1459]MinusRuth of course.[1460]Cf. with Jonah i. 1,וַיְהִי, Josh. i. 1, 1 Sam. i. 1, 2 Sam. i. 1. The corrupt state of the text of Ezek. i. 1 does not permit us to adduce it also as a parallel.[1461]See below, p.496.[1462]See above, Vol. I., p.236.[1463]Acts xi. 8.[1464]Cf. Gittah-hepher, Josh. xix. 13, by some held to be El Meshhed, three miles north-east of Nazareth. The tomb of Jonah is pointed out there.[1465]2 Kings xiv. 25.[1466]Cf. Kuenen,Einl., II. 417, 418.[1467]iii. 3:היתה,was.[1468]See above, pp.21ff.,96ff.[1469]Cf. George Smith,Assyrian Discoveries, p. 94; Sayce,Ancient Empires of the East, p. 141. Cf. previous note.[1470]As,e.g., by Volck, article “Jona” in Herzog’sReal. Encycl.²: the use ofשֶׁלforאֲשֶׁר, as,e.g., in the very early Song of Deborah. But the same occurs in many late passages: Eccles. i. 7, 11, ii. 21, 22, etc.; Psalms cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxv. 2, 8, cxxxvii. 8, cxlvi. 3.[1471]A. Grammatical constructions:—i. 7,בְּשֶׁלְּמִי; 12,בְּשֶׁלִּי: thatבשלhas not altogether displacedבאשרלKönig (Einl., 378) thinks a proof of the date of Jonah in the early Aramaic period. iv. 6, the use ofלוֹfor the accusative, cf. Jer. xl. 2, Ezra viii. 24: seldom in earlier Hebrew, 1 Sam. xxiii. 10, 2 Sam. iii. 30, especially when the object stands before the verb, Isa. xi. 9 (this may be late), 1 Sam. xxii. 7, Job v. 2; but continually in Aramaic, Dan. ii. 10, 12, 14, 24, etc. The first personal pronounאני(five times) occurs oftener thanאנכי(twice), just as in all exilic and post-exilic writings. The numerals ii. 1, iii. 3, precede the noun, as in earlier Hebrew.B. Words:—מנהin Pi. is a favourite term of our author, ii. 1, iv. 6, 8; is elsewhere in O.T. Hebrew found only in Dan. i. 5, 10, 18, 1 Chron. ix. 29, Psalm lxi. 8; but in O.T. AramaicמנאPi.מנּיoccurs in Ezra vii. 25, Dan. ii. 24, 49, iii. 12, etc.ספינה, i. 5, is not elsewhere found in O.T., but is common in later Hebrew and in Aramaic.התעשת, i. 6,to think, for the Heb.חשב, cf. Psalm cxlvi. 4, but Aram. cf. Dan. vi. 4 and Targums.טעםin the senseto order or command, iii. 7, is found elsewhere in the O.T. only in the Aramaic passages Dan. iii. 10, Ezra vi. 1, etc.רבּו, iv. 11, for the earlierרבבהoccurs only in later Hebrew, Ezra ii. 64, Neh. vii. 66, 72, 1 Chron. xxix. 7 (Hosea viii. 12, Kethibh is suspected).שתק, i. 11, 12, occurs only in Psalm cvii. 30, Prov. xxvi. 20.עמל, iv. 10, instead of the usualיגע. The expressionGod of Heaven, i. 9, occurs only in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Psalm cxxxvi. 26, Dan. ii. 18, 19, 44, and frequently in Ezra and Nehemiah.[1472]In chap. iv. there are undoubted echoes of the story of Elijah’s depression in 1 Kings xix., though the alleged parallel between Jonah’s tree (iv. 8) and Elijah’s broom-bush seems to me forced. iv. 9 has been thought, though not conclusively, to depend on Gen. iv. 6, and the appearance ofיהוה אלהיםhas been referred to its frequent use in Gen. ii. f. More important are the parallels with Joel: iii. 9 with Joel ii. 14a, and the attributes of God in iv. 2 with Joel ii. 13. But which of the two is the original?[1473]Kleinert assigns the book to the Exile; Ewald to the fifth or sixth century; Driver to the fifth century (Introd.6, 301); Orelli to the last Chaldean or first Persian age; Vatke to the third century. These assign generally to after the Exile: Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV., p. 218: cf. art. “Jonah” in theEncycl. Brit.), König (Einl.), Rob. Smith, Kuenen, Wildeboer, Budde, Cornill, Farrar, etc. Hitzig brings it down as far as the Maccabean age, which is impossible if the prophetic canon closed in 200B.C., and seeks for its origin in Egypt, “that land of wonders,” on account of its fabulous character, and because of the description of the east wind asחרישׁית(iv. 8), and the name of the gourd,קיקיון, Egyptiankiki. But such a wind and such a plant were found outside Egypt as well. Nowack dates the book after Joel.[1474]See above, Vol. I., p.5.[1475]Below, pp.523ff.[1476]Contrast the treatment of foreign states by Elisha, Amos and Isaiah, etc.[1477]Abridged from pp. 3 and 4 of Kleinert’s Introduction to the Book of Jonah in Lange’s Series of Commentaries. Eng. ed., Vol. XVI.[1478]Köhler,Theol. Rev., Vol. XVI.; Böhme,Z.A.T.W., 1887, pp. 224 ff.[1479]Indeed throughout the book the truths it enforces are always more pushed to the front than the facts.[1480]Nearly all the critics who accept the late date of the book interpret it as parabolic. See also a powerful article by the late Dr. Dale in theExpositor, Fourth Series, Vol. VI., July 1892, pp. 1 ff. Cf., too, C. H. H. Wright,Biblical Essays(1886), pp. 34–98.[1481]Marck (quoted by Kleinert) said: “Scriptum est magna parte historicum sed ita ut in historia ipsa lateat maximi vaticinii mysterium, atque ipse fatis suis, non minus quam effatis vatem se verum demonstret.” Hitzig curiously thinks that this is the reason why it has been placed in the Canon of the Prophets next to the unfulfilled prophecy of God against Edom. But by the date which Hitzig assigns to the book the prophecy against Edom was at least in a fair way to fulfilment. Riehm (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1862, pp. 413 f.): “The practical intention of the book is to afford instruction concerning the proper attitude to prophetic warnings”; these, though genuine words of God, may be averted by repentance. Volck (art. “Jona” in Herzog’sReal. Encycl.²) gives the following. Jonah’s experience is characteristic of the whole prophetic profession. “We learn from it (1) that the prophet must perform what God commands him, however unusual it appears; (2) that even death cannot nullify his calling; (3) that the prophet has no right to the fulfilment of his prediction, but must place it in God’s hand.” Vatke (Einl., 688) maintains that the book was written in an apologetic interest, when Jews expounded the prophets and found this difficulty, that all their predictions had not been fulfilled. “The author obviously teaches: (1) since the prophet cannot withdraw from the Divine commission, he is also not responsible for the contents of his predictions; (2) the prophet often announces Divine purposes, which are not fulfilled, because God in His mercy takes back the threat, when repentance follows; (3) the honour of a prophet is not hurt when a threat is not fulfilled, and the inspiration remains unquestioned, although many predictions are not carried out.”To all of which there is a conclusive answer, in the fact that, had the book been meant to explain or justify unfulfilled prophecy, the author would certainly not have chosen as an instance a judgment against Niniveh, because, by the time he wrote, all the early predictions of Niniveh’s fall had been fulfilled, we might say, to the very letter.[1482]So even Kimchi; and in modern times De Wette, Delitzsch, Bleek, Reuss, Cheyne, Wright, König, Farrar, Orelli, etc. So virtually also Nowack. Ewald’s view is a little different. He thinks that the fundamental truth of the book is that “true fear and repentance bring salvation from Jehovah.”[1483]Isa. xl. ff.[1484]So virtually Kuenen,Einl., II., p. 423; Smend,Lehrbuch der A. T. Religionsgeschichte, pp. 408 f., and Nowack.[1485]That the book is a historical allegory is a very old theory. Hermann v. d. Hardt (Ænigmata Prisci Orbis, 1723: cf.Jonas inCarcharia, Israel in Carcathio, 1718, quoted by Vatke,Einl., p. 686) found in the book a political allegory of the history of Manasseh led into exile, and converted, while the last two chapters represent the history of Josiah. That the book was symbolic in some way of the conduct and fortunes of Israel was a view familiar in Great Britain during the first half of this century: see the Preface to the English translation of Calvin on Jonah (1847). Kleinert (in his commentary on Jonah in Lange’s Series, Vol. XVI. English translation, 1874) was one of the first to expound with details the symbolising of Israel in the prophet Jonah. Then came the article in theTheol. Review(XIV. 1877, pp. 214 ff.) by Cheyne, following Bloch’sStudien z. Gesch. der Sammlung der althebräischen Litteratur(Breslau, 1876); but adding the explanation ofthe great fishfrom Hebrew mythology (see below). Von Orelli quotes Kleinert with approval in the main.[1486]Isa. xlii. 19–24.[1487]Jer. li. 34, 44 f.[1488]That the Book of Jonah employs mythical elements is an opinion that has prevailed since the beginning of this century. But before Semitic mythology was so well known as it is now, these mythical elements were thought to have been derived from the Greek mythology. So Gesenius, De Wette, and even Knobel, but see especially F. C. Baur in Ilgen’sZeitschriftfor 1837, p. 201. Kuenen (Einl., 424) and Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV.) rightly deny traces of any Greek influence on Jonah, and their denial is generally agreed in.Kleinert (op. cit., p. 10) points to the proper source in the native mythology of the Hebrews: “The sea-monster is by no means an unusual phenomenon in prophetic typology. It is the secular power appointed by God for the scourge of Israel and of the earth (Isa. xxvii. 1)”; and Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV., “Jonah: a Study in Jewish Folk-lore and Religion”) points out how Jer. li. 34, 44 f., forms the connecting link between the story of Jonah and the popular mythology.[1489]Z.A.T.W., 1892, pp. 40 ff.[1490]2 Chron. xxiv. 27.[1491]Cf. Driver,Introduction, I., p. 497.[1492]2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.[1493]See Robertson Smith, Old Test. in the Jewish Church, pp. 140, 154.[1494]See above, pp.499f.[1495]Cf. Smend,A. T. Religionsgeschichte, p. 409, n. 1.[1496]Matt. xii. 40—For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights—is not repeated in Luke xi. 29, 30, which confines the sign to the preaching of repentance, and is suspected as an intrusion both for this and other reasons, e.g. that ver. 40 is superfluous and does not fit in with ver. 41, which gives the proper explanation of the sign; that Jonah, who came by his burial in the fish through neglect of his duty and not by martyrdom, could not therefore in this respect be a type of our Lord. On the other hand, ver. 40 is not unlike another reference of our Lord to His resurrection, John ii. 19 ff. Yet, even if ver. 40 be genuine, the vagueness of the parallel drawn in it between Jonah and our Lord surely makes for the opinion that in quoting Jonah our Lord was not concerned about quoting facts, but simply gave an illustration from a well-known tale. Matt. xvi. 4, where the sign of Jonah is again mentioned, does not explain the sign.[1497]Take a case. Suppose we tell slothful people that theirs will be the fate of the man who buried his talent, is this to commit us to the belief that the personages of Christ’s parables actually existed? Or take the homiletic use of Shakespeare’s dramas—“as Macbeth did,” or “as Hamlet said.” Does it commit us to the historical reality of Macbeth or Hamlet? Any preacher among us would resent being bound by such an inference. And if we resent this for ourselves, how chary we should be about seeking to bind our Lord by it.[1498]Eng. trans. ofThe Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 172. Consult also Farrar’s judicious paragraphs on the subject:Minor Prophets, 234 f.[1499]The two attempts which have been made to divide the Book of Jonah are those by Köhler in theTheol. Rev., XVI. 139 ff., and by Böhme in theZ.A.T.W., VII. 224 ff. Köhler first insists on traits of an earlier age (rude conception of God, no sharp boundary drawn between heathens and the Hebrews, etc.), and then finds traces of a late revision: lacuna in i. 2; hesitation in iii. 1, in the giving of the prophet’s commission, which is not pure Hebrew; change of three days to forty (cf. LXX.); mention of unnamed king and his edict, which is superfluous after the popular movement; beasts sharing in mourning; also in i. 5, 8, 9, 14, ii. 2,דָּגָה, iii. 9, iv. 1–4, as disturbing context; also the building of a booth is superfluous, and only invented to account for Jonah remaining forty days instead of the original three; iv. 6,להיות צל על ראשׁוfor an originalלְהַּצִּל לוֹ= to offer him shade; 7,the worm,תולעת, due to a copyist’s change of the followingבעלות. Withdrawing these, Köhler gets an account of the sparing of Niniveh on repentance following a sentence of doom, which, he says, reflects the position of the city of God in Jeremiah’s time, and was due to Jeremiah’s opponents, who said in answer to his sentence of doom: If Niniveh could avert her fate, why not Jerusalem? Böhme’s conclusion, starting from the alleged contradictions in the story, is that no fewer than four hands have had to deal with it. A sufficient answer is given by Kuenen (Einl., 426 ff.), who, after analysing the dissection, says that its “improbability is immediately evident.” With regard to the inconsistencies which Böhme alleges to exist in chap. iii. between ver. 5 and vv. 6–9, Kuenen remarks that “all that is needed for their explanation is a little good-will”—a phrase applicable to many other difficulties raised with regard to other Old Testament books by critical attempts even more rational than those of Böhme. Cornill characterises Böhme’s hypothesis as absurd.[1500]To Thy holy temple, vv. 5 and 8: cf. Psalm v. 8, etc.The waters have come round me to my very soul, ver. 6: cf. Psalm lxix. 2.And Thou broughtest up my life, ver. 7: cf. Psalm xxx. 4.When my soul fainted upon me, ver. 8: cf. Psalm cxlii. 4, etc.With the voice of thanksgiving, ver. 10: cf. Psalm xlii. 5. The reff. are to the Heb. text.[1501]Cf. ver. 3 with Psalm xviii. 7; ver. 4 with Psalm xlii. 8; ver. 5 with Psalm xxxi. 23; ver. 9 with Psalm xxxi. 7, and ver. 10 with Psalm l. 14.[1502]Budde, as above, p. 42.[1503]De Wette, Knobel, Kuenen.[1504]Budde.[1505]E.g.Hitzig.[1506]Luther says of Jonah’s prayer, that “he did not speak with these exact words in the belly of the fish, nor placed them so orderly, but he shows how he took courage, and what sort of thoughts his heart had, when he stood in such a battle with death.” We recognise in this Psalm “the recollection of the confidence with which Jonah hoped towards God, that since he had been rescued in so wonderful a way from death in the waves, He would also bring him out of the night of his grave into the light of day.”[1507]ii. 5, B has λαόν for ναόν; i. 9, forעבריit readsעבדי, and takes theיto be abbreviation forיהוה; ii. 7, forבעדיit readsבעליand translates κάτοχοι; iv. 11, forישׁ־בהּit readsישׁבו, and translates κατοικοῦσι.[1508]i. 4,גדולה, perhaps rightly omitted before followingגדול; i. 8, B omits the clauseבאשרtoלנו, probably rightly, for it is needless, though supplied by Codd. A, Q; iii. 9, one verb, μετανοήσει, forישוב ונחם, probably correctly, see below.[1509]i. 2, ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας forרעתם; ii. 3, τὸν θεόν μου afterיהוה; ii. 10, in obedience to another reading; iii. 2, τὸ ἔμπροσθεν afterקראיה; iii. 8,לאמר.[1510]iii. 4, 8.[1511]iv. 2.[1512]For the grace of God had been the most formative influence in the early religion of Israel (see Vol. I., p.19), and Amos, only thirty years after Jonah, emphasised the moral equality of Israel and the Gentiles before the one God of righteousness. Given these two premisses of God’s essential grace and the moral responsibility of the heathen to Him, and the conclusion could never have been far away that in the end His essential grace must reach the heathen too. Indeed in sayings not later than the eighth century it is foretold that Israel shall become a blessing to the whole world. Our author, then, may have been guilty of no anachronism in imputing such a foreboding to Jonah.[1513]Second Isaiah. See chap. lx.[1514]See the author’sHist. Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 131–134.[1515]Heb.them.[1516]So LXX.: Heb.a great wind.[1517]Heb.on the sea.[1518]Lit.reckonedorthought.[1519]Heb.ropes.[1520]The wordsfor whose sake is this evilcomeupon usdo not occur in LXX. and are unnecessary.[1521]Wellhausen suspects this form of the Divine title.[1522]Heb.dug.[1523]I knew how Thou art a God gracious.[1524]For the Babylonian myths see Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures; George Smith’sAssyrian Discoveries; and Gunkel,Schöpfung u. Chaos.[1525]Passages in which this class of myths are taken in a physical sense are Job iii. 8, vii. 12, xxvi. 12, 13, etc., etc.; and passages in which it is applied politically are Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Jer. li. 34, 44; Psalm lxxiv., etc. See Gunkel,Schöpfung u. Chaos.[1526]Chap. xvii. 12–14.[1527]Jer. li. 34.[1528]Heb. margin, LXX. and Syr.; Heb. textus.[1529]Jer. li. 44, 45.[1530]Cheyne,Theol. Rev., XIV. See above, p.503.[1531]See above, p.511, on the Psalm of Jonah.[1532]Above, p. 525, n.1525.[1533]It is very interesting to notice how many commentators (e.g.Pusey, and the English edition of Lange) who take the story in its individual meaning, and therefore as miraculous, immediately try to minimise the miracle by quoting stories of great fishes who have swallowed men, and even men in armour, whole, and in one case at least have vomited them up alive![1534]See above, pp.511f.[1535]See above, p. 511, nn.1500,1501.[1536]The grammar, which usually expresses result, more literally runs,And Thou didst cast me; but after the preceding verse it must be taken not as expressing consequence but cause.[1537]Readאֵיךְforאַךְ, and with the LXX. take the sentence interrogatively.[1538]Only in iii. 1,second time, and in iv. 2 are there any references from the second to the first part of the book.[1539]The diameter rather than the circumference seems intended by the writer, if we can judge by his sending the prophetone day’s journey through the city. Some, however, take the circumference as meant, and this agrees with the computation of sixty English miles as the girth of the greater Niniveh described below.[1540]LXX. Codd. B, etc., readthree days; other Codd. have thefortyof the Heb. text.[1541]For a more detailed description of Niniveh see above on the Book of Nahum, pp.98ff.[1542]רחבות עיר, Gen. x. 11.[1543]Gen. x. 12, according to which the Great City included, besides Niniveh, at least Resen and Kelach.[1544]And taking the present Kujundschik, Nimrud, Khorsabad and Balawat as the four corners of the district.[1545]iii. 2, iv. 11.[1546]Compare the Book of Jonah, for instance, with the Book of Nahum.[1547]Cf. Herod. IX. 24; Joel i. 18; Virgil,EclogueV.,ÆneidXI. 89 ff.; Plutarch,Alex.72.[1548]LXX.:and they did clothe themselves in sackcloth, and so on.[1549]So LXX. Heb. text:may turn and relent, and turn.[1550]The alleged discrepancies in this account have been already noticed. As the text stands the fast and mourning are proclaimed and actually begun before word reaches the king and his proclamation of fast and mourning goes forth. The discrepancies might be removed by transferring the words in ver. 6,and they cried a fast, and from the greatest of them, to the least they clothed themselves in sackcloth, to the end of ver. 8, with aלאמרorויאמרוto introduce ver. 9. But, as said above (pp.499, 510, n.1499), it is more probable that the text as it stands was original, and that the inconsistencies in the order of the narrative are due to its being a tale or parable.[1551]Deut. xviii. 21, 22.[1552]The Hebrew may be translated either, first,Doest thou well to be angry?or second,Art thou very angry?Our versions both prefer thefirst, though they put thesecondin the margin. The LXX. take thesecond. That the second is the right one is not only proved by its greater suitableness, but by Jonah’s answer to the question,I am very angry, yea, even unto death.[1553]Heb.the city.[1554]קִיקָיון, the Egyptian kiki, the Ricinus or Palma Christi. See above, p. 498, n.1473.[1555]Heb. addsto save him from his evil, perhaps a gloss.[1556]Heb.it.[1557]חֲרִישִׁית. The Targum implies aquiet, i.e.sweltering,east wind. Hitzig thinks that the name is derived from the season of ploughing and some modern proverbs appear to bear this out:an autumn east wind. LXX. συγκαίων Siegfried-Stade:a cutting east wind, as if fromחרשׁ. Steiner emends toחריסית, as if fromחֶרֶס=the piercing, a poetic name of the sun; and Böhme,Z.A.T.W., VII. 256, toחרירית, fromחרר,to glow. Köhler (Theol. Rev., XVI., p. 143) comparesחֶרֶשׁ,dried clay.[1558]Heb.:begged his life, that he might die.[1559]Heb.:which was the son of a night, and son of a night has perished.[1560]Gen. x. 12.
[1403]Heb.and their hoofs he will tear(?).
[1404]For Heb.האלילread as in ver. 15האוילי.
[1405]עמית: only in Lev. and here.
[1406]הך. Perhaps we should readאַכֶּה,I smite, with Matt. xxvi. 31.
[1407]Some take this as a promise:turn My hand towards the little ones.
[1408]LXX. Heb.אמרתי, but theוhas fallen from the front of it.
[1409]See above, p.462.
[1410]xii. 2,רַעַל, a noun not found elsewhere in O. T. We found the verb in Nahum ii. 4 (see above, p.106), and probably in Hab. ii. 16 forוהערל(see above, p. 147, n.412): it is common in Aramean; other forms belong to later Hebrew (cf. Eckardt, p. 85). 3,שׂרטis used in classic Heb. only of intentional cutting and tattooing of oneself; in the sense ofwoundingwhich it has here it is frequent in Aramean. 3 has besidesאבן מעמסה, not found elsewhere. 4 has three nouns terminating in־ון, two of them—תמהון,panic, andעורון, judicialblindness—in O. T. only found here and in Deut. xxviii. 28, the former also in Aramean. 7למען לאis also cited by Eckardt as used only in Ezek. xix. 6, xxvi. 20, and four times in Psalms.
[1411]xii. 6,תחתיה.
[1412]The text readsagainstJudah, as if it with Jerusalem suffered the siege of the heathen. But (1) this makes an unconstruable clause, and (2) the context shows that Judah wasagainstJerusalem. Therefore Geiger (Urschrift, p. 58) is right in deletingעל, and restoring to the clause both sense in itself and harmony with the context. It is easy to see whyעלwas afterwards introduced. LXX. καὶ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ.
[1413]Since Jerome, commentators have thought of a stone by throwing or lifting which men try their strength, what we call a “putting stone.” But is not the idea rather of one of the large stones half-buried in the earth which it is the effort of the husbandman to tear from its bed and carry out of his field before he ploughs it? Keil and Wright think of a heavy stone for building. This is not so likely.
[1414]שׂרט, elsewhere only in Lev. xxi. 5, is there used of intentional cutting of oneself as a sign of mourning. Nowack takes the clause as a later intrusion; but there is no real reason for this.
[1415]Heb.upon Judah will I keep My eyes opento protect him, and this has analogies, Job xiv. 3, Jer. xxxii. 19. But the readingits eyes, which is made by inserting aוthat might easily have dropped out through confusion with the initialוof the next word, has also analogies (Isa. xlii. 7, etc.), and stands in better parallel to the next clause, as well as to the clauses describing the panic of the heathen.
[1416]Others readאַלְפֵי,thousands, i.e.districts.
[1417]Heb.I will find me; LXX. εὑρήσομεν ἑαυτοῖς.
[1418]Hebrew adds a gloss:in Jerusalem.
[1419]The population in time of war.
[1420]xii. 10,שׁפך רוח, not earlier than Ezek. xxxix. 29, Joel iii. 1, 2 (Heb.);תחנונים, only in Job, Proverbs, Psalms and Daniel;המר, an intrans. Hiph.; xiii. 1,מקור,fountain, before Jeremiah only in Hosea xiii. 15 (perhaps a late intrusion), but several times in post-exilic writings instead of pre-exilicבאר(Eckardt);נִדָּהonly after Ezekiel; 3, cf. xii. 10,דקר, chiefly, but not only, in post-exilic writings.
[1421]See especially xii. 12 ff., which is very suggestive of the Priestly Code.
[1422]Hist. Geog., Chap. XIX. On the nameplain of Megiddosee especially notes, p. 386.
[1423]2 Chron. xxxv. 22 ff.
[1424]Another explanation offered by the Targum is the mourning for “Ahab son of Omri, slain by Hadad-Rimmon son of Tab-Rimmon.”
[1425]LXX. gives for Hadad-Rimmon only the second part, ῥοῶν.
[1426]Ezek. viii. 14.
[1427]Baudissin,Studien z. Sem. Rel. Gesch., I. 295 ff.
[1428]Heb.Me; several codd.him: some readאֱלֵיto(him)whom they have pierced; but this would require the elision of the sign of the acc. beforewho. Wellhausen and others think something has fallen from the text.
[1429]See above, p.482.
[1430]LXX. Συμεών.
[1431]Cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, xlvii. 1.
[1432]Readאֲדָמָה קִנְיָנִיfor the Mass.אדם הקנני: so Wellhausen.
[1433]Heb.between.
[1434]But see below, p.490.
[1435]ליהוה: orbelonging to Jehovah; or like theLamed auctorisor Lamed when construed with passive verbs (see OxfordHeb.-Eng. Dictionary, pp. 513 and 514, col. 1),from, by means of, Jehovah.
[1436]Heb.:and ye shall flee, the ravine of My mountains. The text is obviously corrupt, but it is difficult to see how it should be repaired. LXX., Targ. Symmachus and the Babylonian codd. (Baer, p. 84) readוְנִסְתַּם,shall be closed, forוְנַסְתֶּם,ye shall flee, and this is adopted by a number of critics (Bredenkamp, Wellhausen, Nowack). But it is hardly possible before the next clause, which says the valley extends to ’Aṣal.
[1437]Wellhausen suggests the ravine (גיא) of Hinnom.
[1438]אָצַל, place-name: cf.אָצֵל, name of a family of Benjamin, viii. 37 f., ix. 43 f.; andבֵית הָאֵצֶל, Micah i. 11. Some would readאֵצֶל, the adverbnear by.
[1439]Amos i. 1.
[1440]LXX.
[1441]LXX.; Heb.thee.
[1442]Heb. Kethibh,יְקָרוֹת יִקְפָּאוּן,jewels(? hardly stars as some have sought to prove from Job xxxi. 26)grow deadorcongealed. Heb. Ḳerê,jewels and frost,וְקִפָּאוֹן. LXX. καὶ ψύχη καὶ πάγος,וְקָרוּת וְקִפָּאוֹן,and cold and frost. Founding on this Wellhausen proposes to readחוֹםforאוֹר, and renders,there shall be neither heat nor cold nor frost. So Nowack. But it is not easy to see howחוֹםever got changed toאוֹר.
[1443]Uniqueorthe same?
[1444]Taken as a gloss by Wellhausen and Nowack.
[1445]עֲרָבָה, the name for the Jordan Valley, the Ghôr (Hist. Geog., pp. 482–484). It is employed, not because of its fertility, but because of its level character. Cf. Josephus’ name for it, “the Great Plain” (IV.Warsviii. 2; IV.Antt.vi. 1): also 1 Macc. v. 52, xvi. 11.
[1446]Geba “long the limit of Judah to the north, 2 Kings xxiii. 8” (Hist. Geog., pp. 252, 291). Rimmon was on the southern border of Palestine (Josh. xv. 32, xix. 7), the present Umm er Rummamin N. of Beersheba (Rob.,B. R.).
[1447]Orbe inhabited as it stands.
[1448]Cf. “Mal.” iii. 24 (Heb.).
[1449]Ezek. xxxviii. 21.
[1450]So Wellhausen and Nowack.
[1451]So LXX. and Syr. The Heb. text inserts anot.
[1452]חטאת, in classic Heb.sin; but as in Num. xxxii. 23 and Isa. v. 18,the punishment that sin brings down.
[1453]Hosea xiv. 3.
[1454]ix. 10.
[1455]So Wellhausen.
[1456]ix. 10.
[1457]Heb.Canaanite. Cf. Christ’s action in cleansing the Temple of all dealers (Matt. xxi. 12–14).
[1458]Unless the Psalm were counted as such. See below, p.511.
[1459]MinusRuth of course.
[1460]Cf. with Jonah i. 1,וַיְהִי, Josh. i. 1, 1 Sam. i. 1, 2 Sam. i. 1. The corrupt state of the text of Ezek. i. 1 does not permit us to adduce it also as a parallel.
[1461]See below, p.496.
[1462]See above, Vol. I., p.236.
[1463]Acts xi. 8.
[1464]Cf. Gittah-hepher, Josh. xix. 13, by some held to be El Meshhed, three miles north-east of Nazareth. The tomb of Jonah is pointed out there.
[1465]2 Kings xiv. 25.
[1466]Cf. Kuenen,Einl., II. 417, 418.
[1467]iii. 3:היתה,was.
[1468]See above, pp.21ff.,96ff.
[1469]Cf. George Smith,Assyrian Discoveries, p. 94; Sayce,Ancient Empires of the East, p. 141. Cf. previous note.
[1470]As,e.g., by Volck, article “Jona” in Herzog’sReal. Encycl.²: the use ofשֶׁלforאֲשֶׁר, as,e.g., in the very early Song of Deborah. But the same occurs in many late passages: Eccles. i. 7, 11, ii. 21, 22, etc.; Psalms cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxv. 2, 8, cxxxvii. 8, cxlvi. 3.
[1471]A. Grammatical constructions:—i. 7,בְּשֶׁלְּמִי; 12,בְּשֶׁלִּי: thatבשלhas not altogether displacedבאשרלKönig (Einl., 378) thinks a proof of the date of Jonah in the early Aramaic period. iv. 6, the use ofלוֹfor the accusative, cf. Jer. xl. 2, Ezra viii. 24: seldom in earlier Hebrew, 1 Sam. xxiii. 10, 2 Sam. iii. 30, especially when the object stands before the verb, Isa. xi. 9 (this may be late), 1 Sam. xxii. 7, Job v. 2; but continually in Aramaic, Dan. ii. 10, 12, 14, 24, etc. The first personal pronounאני(five times) occurs oftener thanאנכי(twice), just as in all exilic and post-exilic writings. The numerals ii. 1, iii. 3, precede the noun, as in earlier Hebrew.
B. Words:—מנהin Pi. is a favourite term of our author, ii. 1, iv. 6, 8; is elsewhere in O.T. Hebrew found only in Dan. i. 5, 10, 18, 1 Chron. ix. 29, Psalm lxi. 8; but in O.T. AramaicמנאPi.מנּיoccurs in Ezra vii. 25, Dan. ii. 24, 49, iii. 12, etc.ספינה, i. 5, is not elsewhere found in O.T., but is common in later Hebrew and in Aramaic.התעשת, i. 6,to think, for the Heb.חשב, cf. Psalm cxlvi. 4, but Aram. cf. Dan. vi. 4 and Targums.טעםin the senseto order or command, iii. 7, is found elsewhere in the O.T. only in the Aramaic passages Dan. iii. 10, Ezra vi. 1, etc.רבּו, iv. 11, for the earlierרבבהoccurs only in later Hebrew, Ezra ii. 64, Neh. vii. 66, 72, 1 Chron. xxix. 7 (Hosea viii. 12, Kethibh is suspected).שתק, i. 11, 12, occurs only in Psalm cvii. 30, Prov. xxvi. 20.עמל, iv. 10, instead of the usualיגע. The expressionGod of Heaven, i. 9, occurs only in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Psalm cxxxvi. 26, Dan. ii. 18, 19, 44, and frequently in Ezra and Nehemiah.
[1472]In chap. iv. there are undoubted echoes of the story of Elijah’s depression in 1 Kings xix., though the alleged parallel between Jonah’s tree (iv. 8) and Elijah’s broom-bush seems to me forced. iv. 9 has been thought, though not conclusively, to depend on Gen. iv. 6, and the appearance ofיהוה אלהיםhas been referred to its frequent use in Gen. ii. f. More important are the parallels with Joel: iii. 9 with Joel ii. 14a, and the attributes of God in iv. 2 with Joel ii. 13. But which of the two is the original?
[1473]Kleinert assigns the book to the Exile; Ewald to the fifth or sixth century; Driver to the fifth century (Introd.6, 301); Orelli to the last Chaldean or first Persian age; Vatke to the third century. These assign generally to after the Exile: Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV., p. 218: cf. art. “Jonah” in theEncycl. Brit.), König (Einl.), Rob. Smith, Kuenen, Wildeboer, Budde, Cornill, Farrar, etc. Hitzig brings it down as far as the Maccabean age, which is impossible if the prophetic canon closed in 200B.C., and seeks for its origin in Egypt, “that land of wonders,” on account of its fabulous character, and because of the description of the east wind asחרישׁית(iv. 8), and the name of the gourd,קיקיון, Egyptiankiki. But such a wind and such a plant were found outside Egypt as well. Nowack dates the book after Joel.
[1474]See above, Vol. I., p.5.
[1475]Below, pp.523ff.
[1476]Contrast the treatment of foreign states by Elisha, Amos and Isaiah, etc.
[1477]Abridged from pp. 3 and 4 of Kleinert’s Introduction to the Book of Jonah in Lange’s Series of Commentaries. Eng. ed., Vol. XVI.
[1478]Köhler,Theol. Rev., Vol. XVI.; Böhme,Z.A.T.W., 1887, pp. 224 ff.
[1479]Indeed throughout the book the truths it enforces are always more pushed to the front than the facts.
[1480]Nearly all the critics who accept the late date of the book interpret it as parabolic. See also a powerful article by the late Dr. Dale in theExpositor, Fourth Series, Vol. VI., July 1892, pp. 1 ff. Cf., too, C. H. H. Wright,Biblical Essays(1886), pp. 34–98.
[1481]Marck (quoted by Kleinert) said: “Scriptum est magna parte historicum sed ita ut in historia ipsa lateat maximi vaticinii mysterium, atque ipse fatis suis, non minus quam effatis vatem se verum demonstret.” Hitzig curiously thinks that this is the reason why it has been placed in the Canon of the Prophets next to the unfulfilled prophecy of God against Edom. But by the date which Hitzig assigns to the book the prophecy against Edom was at least in a fair way to fulfilment. Riehm (Theol. Stud. u. Krit., 1862, pp. 413 f.): “The practical intention of the book is to afford instruction concerning the proper attitude to prophetic warnings”; these, though genuine words of God, may be averted by repentance. Volck (art. “Jona” in Herzog’sReal. Encycl.²) gives the following. Jonah’s experience is characteristic of the whole prophetic profession. “We learn from it (1) that the prophet must perform what God commands him, however unusual it appears; (2) that even death cannot nullify his calling; (3) that the prophet has no right to the fulfilment of his prediction, but must place it in God’s hand.” Vatke (Einl., 688) maintains that the book was written in an apologetic interest, when Jews expounded the prophets and found this difficulty, that all their predictions had not been fulfilled. “The author obviously teaches: (1) since the prophet cannot withdraw from the Divine commission, he is also not responsible for the contents of his predictions; (2) the prophet often announces Divine purposes, which are not fulfilled, because God in His mercy takes back the threat, when repentance follows; (3) the honour of a prophet is not hurt when a threat is not fulfilled, and the inspiration remains unquestioned, although many predictions are not carried out.”
To all of which there is a conclusive answer, in the fact that, had the book been meant to explain or justify unfulfilled prophecy, the author would certainly not have chosen as an instance a judgment against Niniveh, because, by the time he wrote, all the early predictions of Niniveh’s fall had been fulfilled, we might say, to the very letter.
[1482]So even Kimchi; and in modern times De Wette, Delitzsch, Bleek, Reuss, Cheyne, Wright, König, Farrar, Orelli, etc. So virtually also Nowack. Ewald’s view is a little different. He thinks that the fundamental truth of the book is that “true fear and repentance bring salvation from Jehovah.”
[1483]Isa. xl. ff.
[1484]So virtually Kuenen,Einl., II., p. 423; Smend,Lehrbuch der A. T. Religionsgeschichte, pp. 408 f., and Nowack.
[1485]That the book is a historical allegory is a very old theory. Hermann v. d. Hardt (Ænigmata Prisci Orbis, 1723: cf.Jonas inCarcharia, Israel in Carcathio, 1718, quoted by Vatke,Einl., p. 686) found in the book a political allegory of the history of Manasseh led into exile, and converted, while the last two chapters represent the history of Josiah. That the book was symbolic in some way of the conduct and fortunes of Israel was a view familiar in Great Britain during the first half of this century: see the Preface to the English translation of Calvin on Jonah (1847). Kleinert (in his commentary on Jonah in Lange’s Series, Vol. XVI. English translation, 1874) was one of the first to expound with details the symbolising of Israel in the prophet Jonah. Then came the article in theTheol. Review(XIV. 1877, pp. 214 ff.) by Cheyne, following Bloch’sStudien z. Gesch. der Sammlung der althebräischen Litteratur(Breslau, 1876); but adding the explanation ofthe great fishfrom Hebrew mythology (see below). Von Orelli quotes Kleinert with approval in the main.
[1486]Isa. xlii. 19–24.
[1487]Jer. li. 34, 44 f.
[1488]That the Book of Jonah employs mythical elements is an opinion that has prevailed since the beginning of this century. But before Semitic mythology was so well known as it is now, these mythical elements were thought to have been derived from the Greek mythology. So Gesenius, De Wette, and even Knobel, but see especially F. C. Baur in Ilgen’sZeitschriftfor 1837, p. 201. Kuenen (Einl., 424) and Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV.) rightly deny traces of any Greek influence on Jonah, and their denial is generally agreed in.
Kleinert (op. cit., p. 10) points to the proper source in the native mythology of the Hebrews: “The sea-monster is by no means an unusual phenomenon in prophetic typology. It is the secular power appointed by God for the scourge of Israel and of the earth (Isa. xxvii. 1)”; and Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV., “Jonah: a Study in Jewish Folk-lore and Religion”) points out how Jer. li. 34, 44 f., forms the connecting link between the story of Jonah and the popular mythology.
[1489]Z.A.T.W., 1892, pp. 40 ff.
[1490]2 Chron. xxiv. 27.
[1491]Cf. Driver,Introduction, I., p. 497.
[1492]2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.
[1493]See Robertson Smith, Old Test. in the Jewish Church, pp. 140, 154.
[1494]See above, pp.499f.
[1495]Cf. Smend,A. T. Religionsgeschichte, p. 409, n. 1.
[1496]Matt. xii. 40—For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights—is not repeated in Luke xi. 29, 30, which confines the sign to the preaching of repentance, and is suspected as an intrusion both for this and other reasons, e.g. that ver. 40 is superfluous and does not fit in with ver. 41, which gives the proper explanation of the sign; that Jonah, who came by his burial in the fish through neglect of his duty and not by martyrdom, could not therefore in this respect be a type of our Lord. On the other hand, ver. 40 is not unlike another reference of our Lord to His resurrection, John ii. 19 ff. Yet, even if ver. 40 be genuine, the vagueness of the parallel drawn in it between Jonah and our Lord surely makes for the opinion that in quoting Jonah our Lord was not concerned about quoting facts, but simply gave an illustration from a well-known tale. Matt. xvi. 4, where the sign of Jonah is again mentioned, does not explain the sign.
[1497]Take a case. Suppose we tell slothful people that theirs will be the fate of the man who buried his talent, is this to commit us to the belief that the personages of Christ’s parables actually existed? Or take the homiletic use of Shakespeare’s dramas—“as Macbeth did,” or “as Hamlet said.” Does it commit us to the historical reality of Macbeth or Hamlet? Any preacher among us would resent being bound by such an inference. And if we resent this for ourselves, how chary we should be about seeking to bind our Lord by it.
[1498]Eng. trans. ofThe Twelve Minor Prophets, p. 172. Consult also Farrar’s judicious paragraphs on the subject:Minor Prophets, 234 f.
[1499]The two attempts which have been made to divide the Book of Jonah are those by Köhler in theTheol. Rev., XVI. 139 ff., and by Böhme in theZ.A.T.W., VII. 224 ff. Köhler first insists on traits of an earlier age (rude conception of God, no sharp boundary drawn between heathens and the Hebrews, etc.), and then finds traces of a late revision: lacuna in i. 2; hesitation in iii. 1, in the giving of the prophet’s commission, which is not pure Hebrew; change of three days to forty (cf. LXX.); mention of unnamed king and his edict, which is superfluous after the popular movement; beasts sharing in mourning; also in i. 5, 8, 9, 14, ii. 2,דָּגָה, iii. 9, iv. 1–4, as disturbing context; also the building of a booth is superfluous, and only invented to account for Jonah remaining forty days instead of the original three; iv. 6,להיות צל על ראשׁוfor an originalלְהַּצִּל לוֹ= to offer him shade; 7,the worm,תולעת, due to a copyist’s change of the followingבעלות. Withdrawing these, Köhler gets an account of the sparing of Niniveh on repentance following a sentence of doom, which, he says, reflects the position of the city of God in Jeremiah’s time, and was due to Jeremiah’s opponents, who said in answer to his sentence of doom: If Niniveh could avert her fate, why not Jerusalem? Böhme’s conclusion, starting from the alleged contradictions in the story, is that no fewer than four hands have had to deal with it. A sufficient answer is given by Kuenen (Einl., 426 ff.), who, after analysing the dissection, says that its “improbability is immediately evident.” With regard to the inconsistencies which Böhme alleges to exist in chap. iii. between ver. 5 and vv. 6–9, Kuenen remarks that “all that is needed for their explanation is a little good-will”—a phrase applicable to many other difficulties raised with regard to other Old Testament books by critical attempts even more rational than those of Böhme. Cornill characterises Böhme’s hypothesis as absurd.
[1500]To Thy holy temple, vv. 5 and 8: cf. Psalm v. 8, etc.The waters have come round me to my very soul, ver. 6: cf. Psalm lxix. 2.And Thou broughtest up my life, ver. 7: cf. Psalm xxx. 4.When my soul fainted upon me, ver. 8: cf. Psalm cxlii. 4, etc.With the voice of thanksgiving, ver. 10: cf. Psalm xlii. 5. The reff. are to the Heb. text.
[1501]Cf. ver. 3 with Psalm xviii. 7; ver. 4 with Psalm xlii. 8; ver. 5 with Psalm xxxi. 23; ver. 9 with Psalm xxxi. 7, and ver. 10 with Psalm l. 14.
[1502]Budde, as above, p. 42.
[1503]De Wette, Knobel, Kuenen.
[1504]Budde.
[1505]E.g.Hitzig.
[1506]Luther says of Jonah’s prayer, that “he did not speak with these exact words in the belly of the fish, nor placed them so orderly, but he shows how he took courage, and what sort of thoughts his heart had, when he stood in such a battle with death.” We recognise in this Psalm “the recollection of the confidence with which Jonah hoped towards God, that since he had been rescued in so wonderful a way from death in the waves, He would also bring him out of the night of his grave into the light of day.”
[1507]ii. 5, B has λαόν for ναόν; i. 9, forעבריit readsעבדי, and takes theיto be abbreviation forיהוה; ii. 7, forבעדיit readsבעליand translates κάτοχοι; iv. 11, forישׁ־בהּit readsישׁבו, and translates κατοικοῦσι.
[1508]i. 4,גדולה, perhaps rightly omitted before followingגדול; i. 8, B omits the clauseבאשרtoלנו, probably rightly, for it is needless, though supplied by Codd. A, Q; iii. 9, one verb, μετανοήσει, forישוב ונחם, probably correctly, see below.
[1509]i. 2, ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας forרעתם; ii. 3, τὸν θεόν μου afterיהוה; ii. 10, in obedience to another reading; iii. 2, τὸ ἔμπροσθεν afterקראיה; iii. 8,לאמר.
[1510]iii. 4, 8.
[1511]iv. 2.
[1512]For the grace of God had been the most formative influence in the early religion of Israel (see Vol. I., p.19), and Amos, only thirty years after Jonah, emphasised the moral equality of Israel and the Gentiles before the one God of righteousness. Given these two premisses of God’s essential grace and the moral responsibility of the heathen to Him, and the conclusion could never have been far away that in the end His essential grace must reach the heathen too. Indeed in sayings not later than the eighth century it is foretold that Israel shall become a blessing to the whole world. Our author, then, may have been guilty of no anachronism in imputing such a foreboding to Jonah.
[1513]Second Isaiah. See chap. lx.
[1514]See the author’sHist. Geog. of the Holy Land, pp. 131–134.
[1515]Heb.them.
[1516]So LXX.: Heb.a great wind.
[1517]Heb.on the sea.
[1518]Lit.reckonedorthought.
[1519]Heb.ropes.
[1520]The wordsfor whose sake is this evilcomeupon usdo not occur in LXX. and are unnecessary.
[1521]Wellhausen suspects this form of the Divine title.
[1522]Heb.dug.
[1523]I knew how Thou art a God gracious.
[1524]For the Babylonian myths see Sayce’s Hibbert Lectures; George Smith’sAssyrian Discoveries; and Gunkel,Schöpfung u. Chaos.
[1525]Passages in which this class of myths are taken in a physical sense are Job iii. 8, vii. 12, xxvi. 12, 13, etc., etc.; and passages in which it is applied politically are Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9; Jer. li. 34, 44; Psalm lxxiv., etc. See Gunkel,Schöpfung u. Chaos.
[1526]Chap. xvii. 12–14.
[1527]Jer. li. 34.
[1528]Heb. margin, LXX. and Syr.; Heb. textus.
[1529]Jer. li. 44, 45.
[1530]Cheyne,Theol. Rev., XIV. See above, p.503.
[1531]See above, p.511, on the Psalm of Jonah.
[1532]Above, p. 525, n.1525.
[1533]It is very interesting to notice how many commentators (e.g.Pusey, and the English edition of Lange) who take the story in its individual meaning, and therefore as miraculous, immediately try to minimise the miracle by quoting stories of great fishes who have swallowed men, and even men in armour, whole, and in one case at least have vomited them up alive!
[1534]See above, pp.511f.
[1535]See above, p. 511, nn.1500,1501.
[1536]The grammar, which usually expresses result, more literally runs,And Thou didst cast me; but after the preceding verse it must be taken not as expressing consequence but cause.
[1537]Readאֵיךְforאַךְ, and with the LXX. take the sentence interrogatively.
[1538]Only in iii. 1,second time, and in iv. 2 are there any references from the second to the first part of the book.
[1539]The diameter rather than the circumference seems intended by the writer, if we can judge by his sending the prophetone day’s journey through the city. Some, however, take the circumference as meant, and this agrees with the computation of sixty English miles as the girth of the greater Niniveh described below.
[1540]LXX. Codd. B, etc., readthree days; other Codd. have thefortyof the Heb. text.
[1541]For a more detailed description of Niniveh see above on the Book of Nahum, pp.98ff.
[1542]רחבות עיר, Gen. x. 11.
[1543]Gen. x. 12, according to which the Great City included, besides Niniveh, at least Resen and Kelach.
[1544]And taking the present Kujundschik, Nimrud, Khorsabad and Balawat as the four corners of the district.
[1545]iii. 2, iv. 11.
[1546]Compare the Book of Jonah, for instance, with the Book of Nahum.
[1547]Cf. Herod. IX. 24; Joel i. 18; Virgil,EclogueV.,ÆneidXI. 89 ff.; Plutarch,Alex.72.
[1548]LXX.:and they did clothe themselves in sackcloth, and so on.
[1549]So LXX. Heb. text:may turn and relent, and turn.
[1550]The alleged discrepancies in this account have been already noticed. As the text stands the fast and mourning are proclaimed and actually begun before word reaches the king and his proclamation of fast and mourning goes forth. The discrepancies might be removed by transferring the words in ver. 6,and they cried a fast, and from the greatest of them, to the least they clothed themselves in sackcloth, to the end of ver. 8, with aלאמרorויאמרוto introduce ver. 9. But, as said above (pp.499, 510, n.1499), it is more probable that the text as it stands was original, and that the inconsistencies in the order of the narrative are due to its being a tale or parable.
[1551]Deut. xviii. 21, 22.
[1552]The Hebrew may be translated either, first,Doest thou well to be angry?or second,Art thou very angry?Our versions both prefer thefirst, though they put thesecondin the margin. The LXX. take thesecond. That the second is the right one is not only proved by its greater suitableness, but by Jonah’s answer to the question,I am very angry, yea, even unto death.
[1553]Heb.the city.
[1554]קִיקָיון, the Egyptian kiki, the Ricinus or Palma Christi. See above, p. 498, n.1473.
[1555]Heb. addsto save him from his evil, perhaps a gloss.
[1556]Heb.it.
[1557]חֲרִישִׁית. The Targum implies aquiet, i.e.sweltering,east wind. Hitzig thinks that the name is derived from the season of ploughing and some modern proverbs appear to bear this out:an autumn east wind. LXX. συγκαίων Siegfried-Stade:a cutting east wind, as if fromחרשׁ. Steiner emends toחריסית, as if fromחֶרֶס=the piercing, a poetic name of the sun; and Böhme,Z.A.T.W., VII. 256, toחרירית, fromחרר,to glow. Köhler (Theol. Rev., XVI., p. 143) comparesחֶרֶשׁ,dried clay.
[1558]Heb.:begged his life, that he might die.
[1559]Heb.:which was the son of a night, and son of a night has perished.
[1560]Gen. x. 12.