[1474] See above, Vol. I., p. 5.
[1475] Below, pp. 523 ff.
[1476] Contrast the treatment of foreign states by Elisha, Amos and Isaiah, etc.
[1477] Abridged from pp. 3 and 4 of Kleinert’s Introduction to the Book of Jonah in Lange’s Series of Commentaries. Eng. ed., Vol. XVI.
[1478] Köhler, _Theol. Rev._, Vol. XVI.; Böhme, _Z.A.T.W._, 1887, pp. 224 ff.
[1479] Indeed throughout the book the truths it enforces are always more pushed to the front than the facts.
[1480] Nearly all the critics who accept the late date of the book interpret it as parabolic. See also a powerful article by the late Dr. Dale in the _Expositor_, Fourth Series, Vol. VI., July 1892, pp. 1 ff. Cf., too, C. H. H. Wright, _Biblical Essays_ (1886), pp. 34-98.
[1481] Marck (quoted by Kleinert) said: “Scriptum est magna parte historicum sed ita ut in historia ipsa lateat maximi vaticinii mysterium, atque ipse fatis suis, non minus quam effatis vatem se verum demonstret.” Hitzig curiously thinks that this is the reason why it has been placed in the Canon of the Prophets next to the unfulfilled prophecy of God against Edom. But by the date which Hitzig assigns to the book the prophecy against Edom was at least in a fair way to fulfilment. Riehm (_Theol. Stud. u. Krit._, 1862, pp. 413 f.): “The practical intention of the book is to afford instruction concerning the proper attitude to prophetic warnings”; these, though genuine words of God, may be averted by repentance. Volck (art. “Jona” in Herzog’s _Real. Encycl._²) gives the following. Jonah’s experience is characteristic of the whole prophetic profession. “We learn from it (1) that the prophet must perform what God commands him, however unusual it appears; (2) that even death cannot nullify his calling; (3) that the prophet has no right to the fulfilment of his prediction, but must place it in God’s hand.” Vatke (_Einl._, 688) maintains that the book was written in an apologetic interest, when Jews expounded the prophets and found this difficulty, that all their predictions had not been fulfilled. “The author obviously teaches: (1) since the prophet cannot withdraw from the Divine commission, he is also not responsible for the contents of his predictions; (2) the prophet often announces Divine purposes, which are not fulfilled, because God in His mercy takes back the threat, when repentance follows; (3) the honour of a prophet is not hurt when a threat is not fulfilled, and the inspiration remains unquestioned, although many predictions are not carried out.”
To all of which there is a conclusive answer, in the fact that, had the book been meant to explain or justify unfulfilled prophecy, the author would certainly not have chosen as an instance a judgment against Niniveh, because, by the time he wrote, all the early predictions of Niniveh’s fall had been fulfilled, we might say, to the very letter.
[1482] So even Kimchi; and in modern times De Wette, Delitzsch, Bleek, Reuss, Cheyne, Wright, König, Farrar, Orelli, etc. So virtually also Nowack. Ewald’s view is a little different. He thinks that the fundamental truth of the book is that “true fear and repentance bring salvation from Jehovah.”
[1483] Isa. xl. ff.
[1484] So virtually Kuenen, _Einl._, II., p. 423; Smend, _Lehrbuch der A. T. Religionsgeschichte_, pp. 408 f., and Nowack.
[1485] That the book is a historical allegory is a very old theory. Hermann v. d. Hardt (_Ænigmata Prisci Orbis_, 1723: cf. _Jonas in_ _Carcharia, Israel in Carcathio_, 1718, quoted by Vatke, _Einl._, p. 686) found in the book a political allegory of the history of Manasseh led into exile, and converted, while the last two chapters represent the history of Josiah. That the book was symbolic in some way of the conduct and fortunes of Israel was a view familiar in Great Britain during the first half of this century: see the Preface to the English translation of Calvin on Jonah (1847). Kleinert (in his commentary on Jonah in Lange’s Series, Vol. XVI. English translation, 1874) was one of the first to expound with details the symbolising of Israel in the prophet Jonah. Then came the article in the _Theol. Review_ (XIV. 1877, pp. 214 ff.) by Cheyne, following Bloch’s _Studien z. Gesch. der Sammlung der althebräischen Litteratur_ (Breslau, 1876); but adding the explanation of _the great fish_ from Hebrew mythology (see below). Von Orelli quotes Kleinert with approval in the main.