Wolf, op. cit. Here also, finally, comes in the
following point. The text (Jon 4'") says that the gourd ' tanquam filius noctis factus est et tanquam (cf. Konig, Syntax, % 332^-) filius noctis (alterius) periit (so also Pesh.). The words n;n nS;S"i3 neces- sarily imply that the gourd was the product of a single night (Targ. (tin I'ln k;V^3 ; LXX i) virt) fiimn iy(vq8Ti). But Kaulen (Einleit. § 414) denies this sense to the text. He says, ' The plant simply grew out of the earth overnight, and must other- wise have followed the ordinary course of develop- ment.' But in that case the kikayCn would not have a full claim to the title ' filius noctis.' Further, the verb ."i.'ri, as the opposite of iix, n: ist have the
J ON All
JOXAH
751
sense of ' factus est.' Again, the meaning of v.' is that tlie kikaijun straightway in the early morning furnished a shade for Jonah ; and in any case, according to v.', its existence was only for a single day. For at da\vn of tlie following day (n-i^^S) it was smitten to death, and, when the sun rose, Jonah waa without his shade.
(7) But even the legendary interpretation of the Booli of Jonah lias not been refuted by the repre- sentatives of the exlemo-hUforical interpretation, for they have been unable to explain away the traces of the late date at which the story of Jonali was committed to writing. Can they give an adequate explanation, e.g., of why the name of the .-Vssyrian king is not mentioned, or why he is entitled ' kin" of Nineveh ' ? Can they prove that Jonali himself could have penned the statement, ' Now Nineveli was,' etc., or the specilication of the extent of Nineveh (;}')? On tlie last-mentioned point Kaulen (Einlcit, § 414) says, 'The greatness of the city is stated as of three day.s' journey, either as meaning that a length of three days' journey is attributed to it, or that three days are considered necessary to visit it thoroughly (!). Both meanings are perfectly correct, according as the application of the name " Nineveh" is talcen.' But the expression used in S""" can, according to V.*, refer only to the diameter of the city (see alwve, p. 748'). But the diameter even of the fourfold city (Gn 10") was not ecjual to a three days' journey. 'The length of the road from Kouyunjik to Niniroud is only some 20 English miles. Hence the prophet after one Aay's journey would have been exactly at the other end of the city' (Frd.
Delitzsch, art. ' Ninive' in PRE'' x. 598). Instead
of taking into account these indications in the text, li. Wolf {op. cit.) lays emphasis upon the fact that, according to the Arab. -Syr. Iltstori/ of the Prophet Jonah, God announced pardon to the Ninevites by dispersing a darkness which hung over the city. Wolf (p. 32) at once infers that this must refer to the eclipse of the sun, which, accord- ing to the Assj-rian Kponym list, took place in the year B.C. 763. But that later note about the dispelling of a darkness was an adilition that lay ready to hand, whereby a Wsible token mi"ht be given of the appeasing of the Divine wrath. In any case, there is nothing about this in the biblical Book of Jonah. Hence it is an arliitrary a-ssertion of Wolf (p. 31) that ' in the tradition of the neigh- bourhood the record of the eclipse was combined witli the story of Jonah.' The author of the Arab.-SjT. History of Jonah did not mean dark- ness caused by an eclipse of the sun. Wolf might have recognized this from the fact that Ephraem Syrus says {op. cit. p. 38) that ' the darkness over- hung Nineveh during the whole period of peni- tential mourning.' In 2 K 8"'-, which is cited
by H. Wolf {op. cit. p. 13), it is recorded that I'lislia was in Damascus. But it is not said that he went there as a missionary, and, besides, 2 K 8' furnishes no positive basis for the reality
of the details of the Book of Jonah. Hommel
{AHT p. 145) says, 'One sees from names like "Father is Ai (or Ja)" that the Israclitish tradition that Jonah preached Jahweli to the Ninevites is not so absurd r» according to our modern critics it appears.' But, instead ul abusing the critics, it would have been well if be had read the text accurately. The Book of Jonah says not a word almut tlonah's preaching 'Jahweh' to the inhaliitants of Nineveh. liuther is the name 'Jahweh' avoide<l, and it i» said, 'They believed God' (c'.rSi;, 3>*, so also *■ *• ">*).
(J) The NT pa.ssagcs involved have also fre- quently an incorrect meaning and an unnecessary •cope attributed to them by the upholders of the txtemo-historicai interpretation. First, it may be
assumed that Jesus, in regard to the literary histor3' of the OT, attached llimself to the notions of His contemporaries. There are certain proofs that He did so in regard to other notions that pre- vailed then. Not oiilv did He speak of the rising of the sun (Mt 13", .Sik 1G-, cf. Ja 1"), not only did He call the grain of mustard seed the smallest of all seeds (Mt l.V || Mk 4^>, Lk 13"), becau.se this was then the popular opinion (l.i^htfoot, Hora ad Mt 13^'), but in other matters too He had reirard to tin; inferior knowledi;'' or jiositivi- iL'imraiue of His contemporaries. In particular, lie paid the temple tax, iW fiij aKavoaKL^uiuv avTou% (Mt \'^'). That is to soy, although as vlit toC /SautWui (*.*■'•) He was free n-om the obligation. He paid the tax because the priests would not have recognized the right rea.son of His refusal to pay, and He would thus have given them an occasion of stumbling. For this reason He (preferred to make t, concession to their opinions. Now, as ChrLst, in astronomical, botanical, and other matters, placed Himself on the level of His contemporaries, so might He do in regard to the literary conceptions of His age. For the fulfilment of His religious mission. He required to oppose only such opinions as directly concerned the notion of the true kingdom of God — lurivoio.,