[1486] Isa. xlii. 19-24.
[1487] Jer. li. 34, 44 f.
[1488] That the Book of Jonah employs mythical elements is an opinion that has prevailed since the beginning of this century. But before Semitic mythology was so well known as it is now, these mythical elements were thought to have been derived from the Greek mythology. So Gesenius, De Wette, and even Knobel, but see especially F. C. Baur in Ilgen’s _Zeitschrift_ for 1837, p. 201. Kuenen (_Einl._, 424) and Cheyne (_Theol. Rev._, XIV.) rightly deny traces of any Greek influence on Jonah, and their denial is generally agreed in.
Kleinert (_op. cit._, p. 10) points to the proper source in the native mythology of the Hebrews: “The sea-monster is by no means an unusual phenomenon in prophetic typology. It is the secular power appointed by God for the scourge of Israel and of the earth (Isa. xxvii. 1)”; and Cheyne (_Theol. Rev._, XIV., “Jonah: a Study in Jewish Folk-lore and Religion”) points out how Jer. li. 34, 44 f., forms the connecting link between the story of Jonah and the popular mythology.
[1489] _Z.A.T.W._, 1892, pp. 40 ff.
[1490] 2 Chron. xxiv. 27.
[1491] Cf. Driver, _Introduction_, I., p. 497.
[1492] 2 Chron. xxxiii. 18.
[1493] See Robertson Smith, Old Test. in the Jewish Church, pp. 140, 154.
[1494] See above, pp. 499 f.
[1495] Cf. Smend, _A. T. Religionsgeschichte_, p. 409, n. 1.
[1496] Matt. xii. 40—_For as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so shall the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights_—is not repeated in Luke xi. 29, 30, which confines the sign to the preaching of repentance, and is suspected as an intrusion both for this and other reasons, e.g. that ver. 40 is superfluous and does not fit in with ver. 41, which gives the proper explanation of the sign; that Jonah, who came by his burial in the fish through neglect of his duty and not by martyrdom, could not therefore in this respect be a type of our Lord. On the other hand, ver. 40 is not unlike another reference of our Lord to His resurrection, John ii. 19 ff. Yet, even if ver. 40 be genuine, the vagueness of the parallel drawn in it between Jonah and our Lord surely makes for the opinion that in quoting Jonah our Lord was not concerned about quoting facts, but simply gave an illustration from a well-known tale. Matt. xvi. 4, where the sign of Jonah is again mentioned, does not explain the sign.
[1497] Take a case. Suppose we tell slothful people that theirs will be the fate of the man who buried his talent, is this to commit us to the belief that the personages of Christ’s parables actually existed? Or take the homiletic use of Shakespeare’s dramas—“as Macbeth did,” or “as Hamlet said.” Does it commit us to the historical reality of Macbeth or Hamlet? Any preacher among us would resent being bound by such an inference. And if we resent this for ourselves, how chary we should be about seeking to bind our Lord by it.
[1498] Eng. trans. of _The Twelve Minor Prophets_, p. 172. Consult also Farrar’s judicious paragraphs on the subject: _Minor Prophets_, 234 f.
[1499] The two attempts which have been made to divide the Book of Jonah are those by Köhler in the _Theol. Rev._, XVI. 139 ff., and by Böhme in the _Z.A.T.W._, VII. 224 ff. Köhler first insists on traits of an earlier age (rude conception of God, no sharp boundary drawn between heathens and the Hebrews, etc.), and then finds traces of a late revision: lacuna in i. 2; hesitation in iii. 1, in the giving of the prophet’s commission, which is not pure Hebrew; change of three days to forty (cf. LXX.); mention of unnamed king and his edict, which is superfluous after the popular movement; beasts sharing in mourning; also in i. 5, 8, 9, 14, ii. 2, דָּגָה, iii. 9, iv. 1-4, as disturbing context; also the building of a booth is superfluous, and only invented to account for Jonah remaining forty days instead of the original three; iv. 6, להיות צל על ראשׁו for an original לְהַּצִּל לוֹ = to offer him shade; 7, _the worm_, תולעת, due to a copyist’s change of the following בעלות. Withdrawing these, Köhler gets an account of the sparing of Niniveh on repentance following a sentence of doom, which, he says, reflects the position of the city of God in Jeremiah’s time, and was due to Jeremiah’s opponents, who said in answer to his sentence of doom: If Niniveh could avert her fate, why not Jerusalem? Böhme’s conclusion, starting from the alleged contradictions in the story, is that no fewer than four hands have had to deal with it. A sufficient answer is given by Kuenen (_Einl._, 426 ff.), who, after analysing the dissection, says that its “improbability is immediately evident.” With regard to the inconsistencies which Böhme alleges to exist in chap. iii. between ver. 5 and vv. 6-9, Kuenen remarks that “all that is needed for their explanation is a little good-will”—a phrase applicable to many other difficulties raised with regard to other Old Testament books by critical attempts even more rational than those of Böhme. Cornill characterises Böhme’s hypothesis as absurd.