(d) Arguments drawn from the history of the formation of the OT Canon, (a) In the so-called prophet(e priores of the Heb. OT there is no word of Jonah's journey to Nineveh (2 K 14-^). Nor in the latter passage is there any reference to other
* It is improbable tliat tlie words 1:^ n^it^l nj;-iij 'p\ IJ^NJ were originally a 'marfennal gloss ' (so Kautzsch, /1 7" ; Nowack, El. Proph., ad loc. ; O. A. Smith, ii. 613). For if "PJ'C'J (v.r) w^re to be explained, the marginal gloss would have been simply *P7 "i;fN;:, the whole sentence would not have been written on the margin, iloreover, the sentence is not absolutely super- fluous in v.». Italher is the question there quite intelligible psychologically as an indirect introduction to the following questions. It is equally intelligilile whv the question j7ropfp»- mem htec calamitas nobis acciderit, being an apparent repeti- iiou, should have been omitted in cod. B of the iw
words of Jonah, such as is intended to the Book ol Micah in 1 Iv 22^ D^3 cpa ly:;' n-N'i (cf. Konig,
Einlcitung, 330 f.). {ft) The order of the firu-
p/ictie posteriures, and especially of the Minor Prophets, was only in its general principles a lixed one. This order was not meant to ue chrono- logical (Konig, Einleit. 3iil). The collectors ol the Canon did not intend the books whicli have no clironological superscription to be considered as belonging to the period mentioned in the nearest prccedinj; book which bears a date. For, on the one hanil, in the case of the Book of Amos, the chronological superscription of the Hook of llox-a is repeated, and, on the other hand, it cannot be meant that Nahum and Habakkuk prophesied at the date assigned to the preceding book (Mic 1'). Therefore it may be a-ssunied that the liuok of Jonah was inserted after the Book of (Jbadiah on the ground, not of its chronology, but of its con- tents. Might it not have been supposed that the words n^w' 0:133 tv (' nuntius ad gentus missus est ') found a clear illustration in the story of Jonah! Moreover, in the centuries after the fixile, it was the fate of the Edomites that formed the sulfject of the liveliest discussion (cf. Mai l^ 1 Es 4"- '", Sir 5U^'). Hence it is probable that the iiuestion why the threats pronounced against Edom had remained unfulfilled was intended to be answered in the Book of Jonah. (7) Again, the open- ing words ':, nin- -ij-i 'r);i appear to the present writer to contain an indirect allusion (Syntax, § 3GSa) to the Book of Obadiah, and to have an adversative force (ib. § 3GH/). This introduiliou to the Book of Jonah appears, then, to have origin- ated when the book attained its ])resent |)osition in the Heb. and Gr. OT. On the other hand, probability is lacking to the theory of Budde (ZAfW, 1892, p. 41) that the Book of Jonah was originally an extract from the ' Midrash to the Book of Kings ' (2 Ch 24-''). For, in the lirsl place, the story of Jon !'"• would not have htted well on to 2 K 14-"'-. In the second place, this story, who.se incidents are enacted wholly outside the political history and the land of Israel, would not nave been at all suitable in the D'^S.-n isp uT-p. Not so clear is the justice of the remark of Nowack (1897, on Jon 1') that the Chronicles do not breathe the spirit which the supposed Midrash would
have exhibited. (5) The Book of the Twelve
Minor Prophets was included among the ' pro- phets' or 'prophecies' which already lay before lien-Siracli (Prologue 11. 6 and 14), for 49'" reads nai tCiv owdeKa Trpo(pTjTu>if t4 (itTTd dvaddXoi ^k toO rd-jrov airruiu, or, in the recently published Heb. text of the Sirach fragments, 'ji CN-jjn v;; D'ji* 03. Against the view of Jacob (ZATIV, 1887, p. 280) that 49'" is an interpolation, Noldeke (ZATIV, 1888, p. 15()), Buhl (Kanonu. Text, 1891, p. 11), and Wellhausen (Skizzen, v. 211) have declared themselves. Not without importance is also the question whether the jrdTTjros of Ben-Sirach (to wliom we owe the Greek translation of the Proverbs of Sirach) and the Prologue to the book flourished as earlj' as c. B.C. 300. The present writer claims to have proved this in his Einleitung (1893, p. 488), and his conclusions are now accepted also by J. Halevy (Etude sur la partie du texte htbreu de CEccUsi- a.stique ricemmcnt dh'ouverte, 1897) and Baethgen (Hand-conunentar zu den Psalmen^, 1897, p. xxvii). This circumstance forbids one to carry down tha composition of the Book of Jonah beyond the year B.C. 300, as G. A. Smith (ii. 498) is inclined to do.
In the above sections (3-5) we have sought, from the oldest indications, to characterize the Book oi Jonah positively. What follows will give the negative supplement to this.
6. The principal other interpretations of the Booh of Jonah.
JONAH
JONAH
742
(a) The symliolical character of such a nar- rative, althuiij,'li ill all probaliility this is the character of the Book of .lonuh, might readily he missed. For it is psychologically explicable how histories which are relatcil as concrete occurrences should preferably be understood by many as an account of real events. As a matter of fact, this has happened in not a few instances. For instance, has not the story of the deail bones (Ezk 37'"") been very frequcntlj- understood (cf. Hitzij.', Bib. Thenl. 1880, p. lOit) as if we had to do with literal dead bodies? And that notwithstandin;,' the explanation of the bones in v." 'These bones are the ir/iolc house of Lsrael.' How often, again, are the stories of the hiding of the girdle (Jer IS""') and of the marrying of an adulterous wife (Hos 3'"-) understood as real history ! Accordingly, the fact that this may liavu happened also in the ca-se of the Book of .lonah is no proof of the non- symbulical character of the latter.