Although it is not the purpose of this article to discuss the difficulties connected with the story of Jonah as told in the OT, or to consider the argu- ments advanced for and against the historicity of the book, it will yet be necessary to allude to some of them in connexion with the problems arising out of our Lord's references to the prophet. Those \\ lio maintain the historicity of the Book of Jonah, ami who hold tliat it contains a record of facts, find no sjjecial difficulties in our Lord's .lihisions to it, — He referred to Jonah and to fads in his history, just as He referred to other histoiiial personages and to facts in their history, as to Aliraham, for instance, to Moses, or to the queen of Sheba ; for such persons the only diffi- culties are the subordinate ones belonging to the exegesis and application of the passages in ques- tion. On the other hand, those who deny the historicity of the book, and who hold, with what- ever modifications, that the story is a fictitious symbolic narrative with a didactic purpose, like some others in the OT and in tlic .\|iocrypha, find many grave difficulties in our Lord's use of the book— difficulties which ].. rliaps il.i not admit of an absolutely certain solutidn. Hriore, however, adverting to them tliere is a ])rciiminary point to be considered.
It has been maintained by some that Mt 12'"' is no part of our Lord's original utterance, but is either an amplification by the Evangelist of 12'" (and cf. Lk IP", Mt le-"), or at least a very early interpolation. Against the verse it is said : (I) It runs counter to the Gospel history, for according to that history Jesus had wrought many signs, and could not therefore say, 'No sign shall be given. ' (2) The resurrection was not a sign to the men of that generation, i.e. such as they demanded (cf. Ac- 10"). (3) The clause is unnecessary, and interferes with the balance which Avithout it exists in Mt I2-"- " || Lk IP'- ^-, for it was Jonah's preaching and the consequent repentance of the Ninevites, in contrast with His own preaching and the indifference of the men of His generation, to which Jesus especially alluded ; His words without v.* are a complete answer to their demand for a sign : the repentance-preaching Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites of God's mercy; the repentance-preaching Jesus of Nazareth was a sign, though a greater one, to the .Jews. (4) Add tliat (3) harmonizes well with IJc IP", which was perhaps the original out of which Mt 12-'» was evolved. (5) There is the difficulty about the reckoning of the three
JONAH
JOKAH
days and three nights in the case of our Lord's resurrection.
To these objections it may be replied : (1) There is no contradiction of the Gospel story, for the scribes and Pharisees plainly demanded a sign of a different character from those which they had so far witnessed (see above). (2) The resurrection was a sign, since the Apostles proclaimed it (Acts and Epistles passim), and made it the corner-stone of their teaching about the Christ. (3) V." is unnecessary only on the gratuitous assumption that Jonah's preaching was the only way in which he was to be a sign to the men of Christ's genera- tion ; the introduction in v.*> of another particular in which Jonah was to be a sign does not weaken or interfere wth what our Lord says about the prophet's preaching. (4) Lk 11^, instead of being the original, may well be a summaiy report of Mt 12"' as suggested above, — an explanation rendered not improbable by the whole form and tenor of the passage in Lk. referring to Jonah. (5) This difficulty, such as it is, makes rather for than against the authenticity of the verse (see below). To these replies it may be added : (6) There is .some ground for the conjecture that allusion was made on another occasion by our Lord, and also by St. Paul, to Jonah's deliverance after three days from the 'whale' as typifying tlie resurrec- tion (Lk 24**, 1 Co 15^), it being much more un- likely tliat the reference in these places is to Hos 6-orGn22'' ; and this may be thought to add some strength to the probability tliat our Lord did utter the words recorded in v.-"" (cf. also Mt 27'», Mk 8^', Jn 2'"). (7) There is no textual authority for tlie rejection of the verse. On the whole, tlie conclu- sion that this verse is really part of our Lord's original utterance can be fully justified.
We have now to consider briefly the difficulties connected with our Lord's use of the story of Jonah on the supposition that the book is not historical, but a fictitious narrative with a didactic purpose. (1) Did our Lord cite details from the story of Jonah as facts, He Himself thinking them to be facts? If we reply in the affirmative, we must admit that our Lord was not completely omniscient, and that on a point of literary know- ledge He was and could be in enor. Into a dis- cussion of the great question of tlie limitation of our Lord's human knowledge we cannot, of course, enter here ; it must suffice to point out that the most earnest maintainers of our Lord's Divinity have in all ages recognized, in view of such pas- sages as Sit 24» (RV) || Mk 133=, Lk S*"-", Pli 2', not only a gradual growth of His human know- ledge, but even a mysterious limitation of His knowledge of Divine things ; and however ditticult it may be to understand the union of the Divine and the human in one Person, we must not, in maintaining His Divinity, forget that He was ' perfect man.' 'Is it,' asks Dr. Sanday, 'incon- sistent with our Cliristian belief to suppose that He who called Himself the Son of Man, along with the assumption of human flesh and a human mind, should also have assumed the natural workings of such a mind, even in its limitations?' {Bamp. J.^-ct. viii. p. 415). (2) But did our Lord know in Him- self that the story of Jonah was fiction and vet cite details from it as though tliey were facts. His hearers thinkinj^ them to be sucli ? Here, again. we might reply in the affirmative, and that with- out detracting from our Lord's honesty as a moral and religious teacher, for He would have been but speaking according to the beliefs of His hearers, as many other teachers in all ages have done. Speak- ing to children in Knowledge, He spoke to them as such. In this way, it is nearly universally agreed, we are to explain His worets about Hades anil Abraham's bosom in the graphic parable of the