t I 'JKir- 1133S prn o-.T'k ins'? (.toUieitui ut) rcn h''!
of the Prophet Jonah (p. viii, 1. 3, 'arba'ina). But the LX.\ {rpds), I'hilo (op. cit. § 27, ' civitas ista tres tanlum dies habet'), the Arab, (ij^), and
the other manuscript of the Ilislory (giZUZ.) have
all the number 3. Perhaps this variation is simply due to the relation between c^; p;;'?^' Ti^r? (3^'') and M}\< DV n'^r:^ (v.*"), for it might be supposed that the catastrophe would ensue after the three days' transit through the city. It is less probable that the influence at work was the 'three' of 2' [Eng. 1"]. But the Midrash mentioned a fast of nv^o niS'^ np'?pi D-D' (Wolf, p. 25'). A symbolical sen.';e of the number 'three' is not to be thought of, nor is an interchange of the numbers n' and 7' (W. Bohme, ZATW, 1887, p. 239) likely. Kurther, the verb nzfnj, which is imitated in K3B-inD and in
the Pesh. loc^mAVn, was intended to express the sense of outward destruction ; hence correctly KaTaffTpatp-fiarriu (LXX), suhvcrtctur (Vulgate), . ».. ■in'; (disparcbit), and Mikhlal Jophi, ad loc, D.iTi'CD I'.i ,TrvD "3 .Tcyi onD n^Dnnj -okS .-isii. Wolf, indeed (op. cit. p. 21 f.), contends strongly that the nrcnj of v.* is used ' with intentional ambiguity,' it not being in the plan of an all-seeing Providence to destroy the city. But this argument would be justified only if in other prophetical threatenings also, which remained unfullilled in consefiuence of man's repentance, an ambiguous expression had been used. But, e.g., in 1 K 21^ it is positively announced to kingAhab, 'Behold, I will iiring evil upon thee ' ; no condition is added, yet the prophet was afterwards told, ' I will not bring,' etc. (v.^).
(<?) Then the people, as well as the king of Nineveh, took Jonah for a mes.senger of the Deity ; a general fast was ordained, and the inhabitants turned from their evil ways (3°-"'). So universal was the fasting enjoined that even 'cattle and small cattle' were neither to eat nor drink (v.'). Nowack {ad loc) regards the words ^~-^u\ c-ikh in 3' as a later gloss ; but, even so, the subjects would not be altered, for in v."" 'cattle and small cattle' liave been mentioned. A real participation of animals in the fast has therefore lieen rightly recognized also, e.g., by Pliilo (op. cit. § 37 f.) in the passage. His words are, 'Tantum (sit) humilia- tionem animunuiue compositum secundum scriptu- rara vestiti sunt, ut pecudes quoque eorum precibus vacantes cos juvarent,' etc. Kurther, the author of the Aral).-Syr. i/iXory 0/ Jonah put in the mouth of the Ninevites the following prayer, ' If this repentance be not accepted of God, trans- gressors will in future despair of the tw.ssibility of return.' He went on to tell how tlie Divine pardon was announced by the sending of a letter and the ilispclling of a darkness which had lain over the city during the fiust (Wolf, on. cit. p. 26).
(/) Enraged at the action of Ciod, Jonah was brought, through his own grief at the loss of a 'gourd,'* to see that God had rightly pardoned the Ninevites.
• On jHlai/dn (t""-, T»rg. p'p'p)cf. Herodot. 11. W, «jii-j«». )i ;^<M>r«,. «.T.X., T» ««>.ibr, fU, A.Vv^TiM K.Ki ; BIT al-ioesiMviallv Iniiiianufl Low, Aram. J\itttii!enuatnru, So. SUS, 'The Jiicinut cominuiiu(Linn.X under llu- n»Tne tiki, wm, for the ukr of iU oil, cullivateil IK lariftly in nnciinl l.n\ \>i m il i» at the prewnt day'; c(. l>iod. Sic. i. S4 ; l>io«i>.ri.liii, iv. UU ; I'liliv, II .\ XV. 7. Well (p. 52) taj-s, ' In the Tulinml (ShaN^tlh 21« 11. Off.) KCili I^l(l>li Muuinea thsl the p'p |~y' of the Miihnah (Shak. hath li. i) la Idinlical with the n;!'! p'p'P, ui<t H*bt«h b«r Ur (»■>) t'hiu»h Bald th»t he hcid »een It (i)" \vfp "> •lln).' The k\layf>n, a<>'ordin(r to the Tnlnuitl. rcwmhlea the M3'7»73(, a Im- fn-n* whoso pilll oil ntid ini-ili'-inra wi-re prepared. It IN llif Anil'ic Atnra'un, ' hcinus fnitvx ' (Krt> taK, L*x. Arab\ KluiL'hl luul already cited this eiplaiiatiun, which appear* alao
\n MikhtalJofhi. It wa< not the •^•u..*>. Ui-O 'cf. \\\ C
746
JOXAH
JONAH
2. The Unity of the Book ' Jonah.'— This book might, at least partially, be a genuine source of information about Jonah ben-Amittai, if it were composed of several strata. The latter position was once maintained by Miiller in Paulus' Mciiiora- bilien, vi. p. 167 ff., and by Nachtigall in Eicli horn's Allgemeiner BibUot)iek, \x. 221-273 (cf. Eiclihom, Einleit. iv. § 5776). Accordin;^ to Nachti^all (and Bunsen), among the sacred books of the Hebrews there was ' a prayer of Jonah the son of Amittai,' with the note appendeil, ' after God had delivered him out of the hand of the king of Assyria.' This prayer is supposed to be preserved in Jon 2'""', and then chs. 3 and 4 and stUl later chs. 1 and 2"- " [Eiig. 1" 2'"] to have been added to it. Naclitigall has started from a correct perception, namely, that the lirst part of the prayer (Jon 2'""') cannot have been uttered by a man who has been swallowed by a sea- monster. Jonah could not out of the belly of the fish say to God, ' Posuisti me in securo loco ' (PhUo, op. cit. § 22). Having regard to his other experiences, and even per se, it was impossible that Jonah should regard his sojourn in the fish's belly as a preliminary to his complete deliverance (Kimchi on 2^ oi'jitd n.T "VDo ks'i? v>' invna). This prayer could only at best then be uttered after Jonah's deliverance, which is recorded in 2" [Lng. '"]. If now the author of 2"- " had already before him that prayer of thanksgiving (NachtigaJl, Bunsen), he would have introduced it after 2", otherwise he must have placed the origin of the poem within the body of the great fish, in order uy this improbability to indicate the didactic pur- pose of his narrative. But it is more likely that this composition has been supplemented by a later ■writer who missed the contents of the prayer re- ferred to in 2* (Knobel, Der Propkctkmus der JTebrder, ii. 377). This older as.sumption also appears to us the only correct element in the coutentions of W. Bohme (' Die Comjioa. d. Buches Jona' in ZATW, 18S7, pp. 224 ff., 234), and it is approved also by Cheyne (Origin of tlie Psalter, 1891, p. 126), Budde (ZATW, 1892, p. 42), and NowacK (Handi:omm. 1897, p. 180). G. A. Smith (Twelve Prophets, ii. 512) opposes it, appealing to I?;! (' and he arranged or ordered') of 2' [Eng. 1"], as showing that the author knew that Jonah was to be saved by means of the fish. But the man who was swallowed by the fish did not know this. Hence, if Jonah himself wrote the book, he ascribed to himself by prolepsis a prayer of thanksgiving ; whUe, if it was a later writer who put this prayer in the mouth of the swallowed Jonah, he ascribed to the hero of the narrative an action which in the situation of Jon 2' would be a psychological enigma.