The Expositor's Bible: The Book of the Twelve Prophets,...

[1470] As, e.g., by Volck, article “Jona” in Herzog’s Real. Encycl.²: the use of שֶׁל for אֲשֶׁר, as, e.g., in the very early Song of Deborah. But the same occurs in many late passages: Eccles. i. 7, 11, ii. 21, 22, etc.; Psalms cxxii., cxxiv., cxxxv. 2, 8, cxxxvii. 8, cxlvi. 3.

[1471] A. Grammatical constructions:—i. 7, בְּשֶׁלְּמִי; 12, בְּשֶׁלִּי: that בשל has not altogether displaced באשרל König (Einl., 378) thinks a proof of the date of Jonah in the early Aramaic period. iv. 6, the use of לוֹ for the accusative, cf. Jer. xl. 2, Ezra viii. 24: seldom in earlier Hebrew, 1 Sam. xxiii. 10, 2 Sam. iii. 30, especially when the object stands before the verb, Isa. xi. 9 (this may be late), 1 Sam. xxii. 7, Job v. 2; but continually in Aramaic, Dan. ii. 10, 12, 14, 24, etc. The first personal pronoun אני (five times) occurs oftener than אנכי (twice), just as in all exilic and post-exilic writings. The numerals ii. 1, iii. 3, precede the noun, as in earlier Hebrew.

B. Words:—מנה in Pi. is a favourite term of our author, ii. 1, iv. 6, 8; is elsewhere in O.T. Hebrew found only in Dan. i. 5, 10, 18, 1 Chron. ix. 29, Psalm lxi. 8; but in O.T. Aramaic מנא Pi. מנּי occurs in Ezra vii. 25, Dan. ii. 24, 49, iii. 12, etc. ספינה, i. 5, is not elsewhere found in O.T., but is common in later Hebrew and in Aramaic. התעשת, i. 6, to think, for the Heb. חשב, cf. Psalm cxlvi. 4, but Aram. cf. Dan. vi. 4 and Targums. טעם in the sense to order or command, iii. 7, is found elsewhere in the O.T. only in the Aramaic passages Dan. iii. 10, Ezra vi. 1, etc. רבּו, iv. 11, for the earlier רבבה occurs only in later Hebrew, Ezra ii. 64, Neh. vii. 66, 72, 1 Chron. xxix. 7 (Hosea viii. 12, Kethibh is suspected). שתק, i. 11, 12, occurs only in Psalm cvii. 30, Prov. xxvi. 20. עמל, iv. 10, instead of the usual יגע. The expression God of Heaven, i. 9, occurs only in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 23, Psalm cxxxvi. 26, Dan. ii. 18, 19, 44, and frequently in Ezra and Nehemiah.

[1472] In chap. iv. there are undoubted echoes of the story of Elijah’s depression in 1 Kings xix., though the alleged parallel between Jonah’s tree (iv. 8) and Elijah’s broom-bush seems to me forced. iv. 9 has been thought, though not conclusively, to depend on Gen. iv. 6, and the appearance of יהוה אלהים has been referred to its frequent use in Gen. ii. f. More important are the parallels with Joel: iii. 9 with Joel ii. 14a, and the attributes of God in iv. 2 with Joel ii. 13. But which of the two is the original?

[1473] Kleinert assigns the book to the Exile; Ewald to the fifth or sixth century; Driver to the fifth century (Introd.6, 301); Orelli to the last Chaldean or first Persian age; Vatke to the third century. These assign generally to after the Exile: Cheyne (Theol. Rev., XIV., p. 218: cf. art. “Jonah” in the Encycl. Brit.), König (Einl.), Rob. Smith, Kuenen, Wildeboer, Budde, Cornill, Farrar, etc. Hitzig brings it down as far as the Maccabean age, which is impossible if the prophetic canon closed in 200 B.C., and seeks for its origin in Egypt, “that land of wonders,” on account of its fabulous character, and because of the description of the east wind as חרישׁית (iv. 8), and the name of the gourd, קיקיון, Egyptian kiki. But such a wind and such a plant were found outside Egypt as well. Nowack dates the book after Joel.

[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.”

[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.

[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.