The plain literal import of the narrative being set aside, the supposed design of it has been very variously interpreted. Michaelis, Semler, and Bleek, virtually suppose the purpose of the nar rative to be the injustice of the arrogance and hatred cherished by the Jews towards other nations. Eichhorn and Jahn think its design was to teach the Jews that other people with less privileges ex celled them in pious obedience. Hezel argues that this episode was meant to solace and excite the prophets under the discharge of difficult and dangerous duties ; while Paulus (Memorabilia, vi. 32, sqq.) maintains that tbe object of the author of ?onah is to impress the fact that God remits punish ment on repentance and reformation. Similar is the idea of Kimchi and Pareau. Krahmer thinks that the theme of the writer is that God's kindness to penitents extends to Gentiles as well as Jews. Maurer adheres to the opinion that it inculcates the sin of not obeying God, even in pronouncing severe threatenings on a heathen people ; and lastly, Koster (Die Propheten des A. und N. T., Leipz. 1839) favours the malignant insinuation that its chief end was to save the credit of the prophets among the people, though their predictions against foreign nations might not be fulfilled, as Nineveh was preserved after being so menaced and doomed. While the book embodies several of these truths, the prophet's mission had also a direct bearing on the profligacy, impenitence, and danger of his own people.
Much prelim. wit bas been expended, very un necessarily and very absurdly, on the miraculous means of Jonah's deliverance. It is simply said, 'The Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up I Jonah.' Now the species of marine animal is not defined, and the Greek /SF OS is often used to specify, not the genus whale, but any large fish or sea m on ster. All objections to its being a whale which lodged Jonah in its stomach from its strait ness of throat, or rareness of haunt in the Mediter ranean, are thus removed. Hesychius defines xfrros as OaXciacrws IxObs Iranp.eybOns. Eustathius ex plains its correspondent adjective KnTWEO-Cal, by pe-ycanp, in the Homeric line (Iliad, ii. 581)— ot 8' etxop Koanp AaKazi,uova KnrcLeco-av.
Diodorus Siculus speaks of terrestrial monsters as KnTan P.-0'a, and describes a huge fish as xfp-os Itreo-roP rd AbyeGor. The Scripture speaks only of an enormous fish, which under God's direction swallowed the prophet, and does not point out the species to which the monster belonged. There is no ground for the supposition of Bishop Jebb, that the asylum of Jonah was not in the stomach of a whale, but in a cavity of its throat, which, accord ing to naturalists, is a very capacious receptacle, sufficiently large, as Captain Scoresby asserts, to contain a merchant ship's jolly-boat full of men (Sacred Literature, p. 178). Since the days of Bocbart it has been a common opinion that the fish was of the shark species, Lamia canis carcharias, or sea-dog' (Bochart, op. Ht. 72; Calmet's D sedation Jur yon.) Entire human bodies have
been found in some fishes of this kind. The stomach, too, has no influence on any lhing sub stance admitted into it. Granting these facts as proof of what is termed the economy of miracles, still must we say, in reference to the supernatural preservation of Jonah, Is anything too hard for the Lord?' We cannot accede to the system of Gale, Huet, Bryant, Faber, and Taylor, in tracing all pagan fiction, legend, and mythology, to Scrip ture facts and events. The miraculous incident of this book is unlike in many particulars the story of Arian and the dolphin (Herodot. i. 24), or the wild adventure of Hercules in regard to Hermione, which is referred to in Lycophron (Cassandra, v. 33). The same assertion may be made of the myth of Perseus and Andromeda and the Baby lonian fable of the sea monster Oannes—a name not unlike that of Jonah. Cyrillus Alex., how ever, in his Comment. in Yon., notices some simili tude between the incident of Jonah and the fabled enterprise of the son of Alcmena. Compare, too. Theophylact (opp., tom. iv. p. 189).
On what portion of tbe coast Jonah was set down in safety we are not informed. The opinions held as to the peculiar spot by the Rabbins and other similar expositors need not to be repeated. The prophet proceeded, on receiving a second commission, to fulfil it. The second commission was sharper and more determinate than the ginal one. The fearful menace had the desired effect. The city humbled itself before God, and a respite was vouchsafed. The king (Pul, ac cording to Usher) and his people fasted, and their penitence was accepted. The spirit of Jonah was chafed that the doom which he had uttered was not executed. He retired to a station out of the city whence he might witness the threat ened catastrophe. Under the shadow of a gourd prepared by God he reclined, while Jehovah taught him by the growth and speedy death of this plant, and his attachment to it, a sublime lesson of patient and forgiving generosity. The gourd, irp,p, was probably the Ric/nits, whose name Kiki is yet preserved in some of the tongues of the East. The Sept. renders it Jerome translates it hedera, but against his better judgment, and for fear of giving offence to the critics of his age, as he quietly adds in justifica tion of his less preferable rendering, sed timuimus grammaticos.' It is impossible to determine the king who reigned in Nineveh at the period of Jonah's mission. Layard (Nineveh, ii. 249) sup poses that the visit of the prophet took place during the second dynasty, which may have commenced 747 B. C.; but Jeroboam II., under whom or at" the beginning of whose reign Jonah prophesied, began to reign 825 B. C. The earlier Assyrian dynasty was also a mighty one, and to one of its kings Jonah may have been sent—perhaps to Iva-lush III., supposed by some to be the Pul of Scrip ture. The name of Jehu, grandfather of Jero boam II., has been discovered on 'an obelisk, in connection with Shalmanubar grandfather of Iva lush.