Konler, again (Theol. Rev. xvi. 139 ff.), thinks to discover in the Bk. of Jonah partly signs of an earlier age and partly traces of a later revision (but see G. A. Smith, ii. 610=). Finally,\V. Bohme (op. cit.) has started the theory that four strata can be distinguished within the Bk. of Jonah. But neither his formal arguments nor those based upon the contents can be regarded as valid. This hypothesis has already been examined by the present writer in his Einleitung, p. 378 f., and, as no one has since ventured to defend the assumption that the Bk. of Jonah was composed from diilerent strata, it is lumecessary to go mto the question in more detail.
3. Is there a necessary relation between the person and the Book of Jonah ? The genetic connexion
eucurbitu, pepo' (Brockelmann, Ltx. Syr. :v.), Arab. , tUai
(Koran, xixvii. 146). Afl Jerome replaced mcurbila ot the old Latin by hedera (Mry"). there arose *tumultU8 in plebe' (Augiistinus, <ul Hieron., Epistola 83).
of Jonah ben-Amittai and the Bk. of Jonah appean to be based upon this much at least : We seera compelled to assume that a tradition existed, according to which Jonah ben-Amittai journeyed bfvond his own country, that he was involved in a dangerous situation, and that he was ultimately delivered from this. Without such a tradition, it seems inexplicable whv it is to the name of Jonah that the book is attached. Kiehm, indeed (Intro- duction, ii. 107), says, 'The reason why the author selected the name of Jonah was that the only prophet that would serve his puri)ose was one whose natne was on the one hand familiar to the people, but about whom on the other hand they knew nothing more.' This, however, is incon- clusive. There were several prophets of that kind. Only in one event would the choice of the name Jonah ben-Amittai (Jon 1') be uxjilieable without a historical tradition, namely, if Amittai were meant to be a nomen uppellutivum, i.e. il ' Jonah Clius creduli ' were so designated as a re- presentative of believers (tar' iioxni', the so-called orthodox party. We call attention to this possi- bility, because m investigating so difficult aquestion all possibilities must be weighed. It is a fact at all events that, in the case of this ben-Aiaittai (Jon 1'), Gath (ha)hepher is not specified as his birthplace (see further, below, 4 c, p. 747'').
4. Tlut formal character of the Book of Jonah. — Notwithstanding that the book may rest upon a tradition about Jonah, yet the essential character of the book consists in this, that it belongs to the category of symbolical narratives.
(a) There were such narratives. For instance, in Jer 25""'- it is said, 'Take this cup,' etc., and ' I took the cup at the hand of J" and made all the nations drink ' (v."). Thus actions of the prophet are recorded as if they had been outwardly per- formed, and yet they cannot Imve really been so. Rather is the story merely a form of representation in which a Divine message is presented in a visible and therefore impressive fashion. This being mani- festly the case with Jer 25"**-, there is no need in 13^"- to take the name Pirath, which everywhere else (15 times) means the Euphrates (so also in Jer 51®), to refer to a place which is not meant any- where else in OT, nor so understood by LXX (ivl rbv Ev(ppdTTii', K.r.X.), etc., in Jer IS*"-, and which stood in no relation to the captivity of Israel. For the same reason it is unnecessary to suppose that the prophet Ezekiel actually lay for 390 days upon his left and for 40 days upon his right side (4'"- etc.). Moreover, in 24' the words 'Set on the caldron and pour water into it,' etc., are called by Ezekiel a mashal (cf. the Arab, mitlun, similitudo, Trapa- /SoX^ ; see Konig's art. ' Zur Deutung der symboli- schen Handlungen des Propheten Hesekiel,' in the Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, iii. 650 fi'.). Similar to the narrative of Jer 25'"'- is that of Hos I"'- and 3'*' (so, inter alios, Hitzig, Simson, KeU, Wiinsche, Reuss [Gesch. d. heil. Schriften A Ts, 1890, § 223] ; see, further, art. HosEA in this Dictionarj'). For there it is expressly said, ' Go, take to thee mulierem fomicationis' antf, even if the latter phrase can mean only 'a wife of whoredoms' (Cheyne, Camb. Bible, ad loc. ; G. A. Smith, i. 234, ' a wife of harlotry '), it is improperly assumed by some inter- preters (e.g. Cheyne, Wellh., Nowack, G. A. Smith) that the woman had not beforehand ' an inclination to infidelity.' Such an interpretation runs counter to the text, according to which at the very outset Hosea was inspired \vith the idea of marrying a mulier fomicationis (i.e. idololatrice eorumque vitiomm quie cum ilia coh(Brere solebant). Besitles, an ' inclination to infidelity ' was a thing by no means strange to the majority of the nation, with which J" as it were contracted a marriage in the time of Moses (cf. Ex 32^). Again, if the com
JONAH
JONAH
747
mission of J' was literally carried out, Hosea must have married an adulteress (Hos 3'). But, with a view to the visible presentation of a truth, there is no need for such an outwnrd performance of actions which would have been not only in themselves repujjnant, but also unnatural for the proi)het himself.