children of Israel shall possess that of the Canaanites, even unto Zarephath; and the captivity of Jerusalem, which is in Sepharad, shall possess the cities of the south. 19 Or, shall possess that which is in Sepharad. 21 And 20saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the "kingdom shall be the LORD'S. 20 1 Tim. 4. 16. James 5. 20. 21 Luke 1. 33. 6 Verse 14. To cut off those of his that did escape.'-On the destruction of Jerusalem many Jews endeavoured to escape into Egypt; and, seeing by what strong enmity the Edomites were actuated, it is exceedingly probable that they did not fail to avail themselves of the facilities which their intermediate position offered for cutting off and destroying numbers of these fugitives. 20. Sepharad.'-This seems to be described as a place to which the exiles from Jerusalem should be taken. Most of the Rabbinical writers regard Sepharad as Spain, interpreting the whole passage with reference to their present captivity'-as they designate the state of dispersion in which they are now found. Jerome informs us that his Hebrew teacher told him that the Bosphorus was called Sepharad, and that to its borders many of the Jews were sent into exile by Adrian. That the district of Sepharad may be sought somewhere in the region of the Bosphorus, has lately been confirmed by a palæographical discovery. In the celebrated cuneiform containing a list of the tribes of Persia (Niebuhr, tab. 31, lett. i.), after Assyria, Gorydene, Armenia, Cappadocia, and before Ionia and Greece, is found the name CPaRaD, as read both by Bournouf and Lassen, and this was recognized also by De Sacy as the Sephar of this text, which has considerably exercised the ingenuity of commentators. It may therefore be regarded as a district of Western Asia Minor, or near to it. See the Thesaurus of Gesenius under the word; and Bournouf, Mém. sur deux Inscr. Cuneif. p. 147, 1836. JONA H. IN 2 Kings xiv. 25, there is a notice of this prophet which supplies some information concerning him not to be found in the present book. It states that he was a native of Gath-hepher, a town of Zebulun, in the kingdom of Israel, and in after times a part of Galilee. The remaining information is open to two interpretations. We are told that certain things were done by Jeroboam II., king of Israel, according to the word of the Lord God of Israel, which he spake by the hand of his servant Jonah.' If this means that this word of the Lord was delivered personally to Jeroboam by Jonah, we then learn that he lived in the reign of that monarch, and was contemporary with the earliest of the prophets (Joel, Amos and Hosea) whose writings are exhibited in a collected form. But it may be understood that the word of the Lord by Jonah was a prediction delivered by Jonah in a preceding reign, and fulfilled in that of Jeroboam; in which case, he of course becomes more ancient than the earliest of the other prophets whose time can be ascertained. Both explanations have their respective advocates; and we are ourselves disposed to consider that he was earlier, but not considerably earlier, than Amos and Hosea. We have no authentic information concerning Jonah later than the transaction which the present book records. The probability is that he returned from Nineveh to his own country, and died and was buried there. Such, however, is not the opinion of the people of Mesopotamia; for on one of the mounds which mark the site of ancient Nineveh, a tomb is shewn which is alleged to cover the remains of the prophet. But, on the other hand, another tomb of the same prophet, for which similar claims were made, existed even in the time of Jerome, at a place within the tribe of Zebulun, two miles from Sepphoris on the road to Tiberias, which still retains the name of Gath. Benjamin of Tudela, correspondingly, describes the tomb of Jonah, as on a hill near Sepphoris. It is also noticed by Thevenot, who says that the Turks had built a mosque over the sepulchral cave, and held the spot in such high veneration that they would allow no Christian to approach it. The Moslems indeed, who have a garbled version, in the Koran, of the narrative before us, hold the prophet Jonah in very high consideration. This is perhaps because Mohammed took every occasion to check any disposition which he perceived to speak disparagingly of Jonah, as compared with other prophets, on account of those infirmities of character which his history displays. Thus, in the Book of Traditions, Mohammed is reported to have said, 'I do not say that there are any of the prophets better than Yúnas-bin-Matta.' And in one tradition it is thus:- Do not give to some prophets greater excellence than to others.' Again, It is unworthy of a servant to say, "I am better than Jonas the prophet." And another tradition has, 'Whoever shall say, "I am better than Jonas the prophet," is a liar.' Most of these were good lessons to self-relying pride, notwithstanding the source from which they came. There is no book of Scripture against which the shafts of infidelity and the back thrusts of rationalism have been directed with so much vigour and assurance as against the book of Jonah. This is founded chiefly on the incident of the great fish which swallowed Jonah, and which, after detaining him three days and three nights, ejected him on the shore alive. On this we have remarked in the Notes. It must be confessed that the direct attacks which have been made on the book on account of the assumed impossibility of these circumstances, are more tolerable to us than some of the attempts at explanation. Our Lord himself recognizes Jonah as a prophet; alludes to his being detained in the body of the whale as a real circumstance, and, not only so, but pointedly adopts this incident as a symbol of his own detention in the grave, and of his resurrection after the same lapse of time; Matt. ix. 40. Those who deny the authority of the book, in the face of this authentication by the Lord himself, may be understood, and can be dealt with on the general principles of Scripture evidence; but it is less easy to understand and grasp the objections of those who, while they admit the authority of the book, deny the historical character of the most remarkable circumstance it records, although attested by the same authority by which the book itself is accredited. It has indeed been urged that this reference by our Saviour to Jonah's imprisonment in the belly of the great fish, does not necessarily prove the historical truth of the circumstance. But the more closely our Lord's testimony be examined, the more plainly it will be seen that he authenticates not only the prophetic existence of Jonah, but the historical reality of all the most marvellous circumstances of the history. 'He not only,' says Dr. Henderson, explicitly recognizes the prophetical office of the son of Amittai ('Iwvă rou Tрopýrov), just as he does that of Elisha, Isaiah, and Daniel, but represents his being in the belly of the fish as a real miracle (rò onμečov); grounds upon it, as a fact, the certainty of a future analogous fact in his own history; assumes the actual execution of the prophet's commission at Nineveh; positively asserts that the inhabitants of Nineveh repented at his preaching, and concludes by declaring of himself, "Behold, a greater than Jonah is here;" Matt. xii. 35-41; xvi. 4. Now is it conceivable that all these historical circumstances would have been placed in this prominent light, if the person of the prophet and the brief details of his narration had been purely fictitious? On the same principle that the historical bearing of the reference in the case is rejected, may not that of the Queen of Sheba, which follows in the connection, be set aside, and the portion of the first Book of the Kings, in which the circumstances of her visit to Solomon are recorded, be converted into an allegory, a moral fiction, or a popular tradition? The two cases, as adduced by our Lord, are altogether parallel. It has been said, indeed, that a fictitious narrative of the usual kind would answer the purpose of our Saviour equally well with one which contained a statement of real transactions; just as it has been maintained that the reference made by the Apostle James to the patience of Job, suited his purpose, irrespective of the actual existence of that patriarch; but as in the one case a fictitious example of patience would prove only a tame and frigid motive to the endurance of actual suffering, so in the other a merely imaginary repentance must be regarded as little calculated to enforce the duties of genuine contrition and amendment of life.' On this point the reader may be referred to the remarks offered in our Introduction to Job. To these considerations it may be added that the allusions of our Saviour to Old Testament events, on similar occasions, are all to actual occurrences (John iii. 14; vi. 48); that the purpose which God had in view justified his miraculous interposition; that this miracle must have had a salutary effect both on the minds of the Ninevites, and on the people of Israel. Neither is the character of Jonah improbable. Many reasons might induce him to avoid the discharge of his prophetic duty-fear of being thought a false prophet, scorn of a foreign and hostile race, desire for their utter destruction, and a false dignity which might reckon it beneath his prerogative to officiate in behalf of uncircumcised idolaters. These considerations seem to us fairly to meet the various hypotheses of those who regard the narrative, of the fish (at least), as an allegory, a dream, a myth, or a moral fiction with a basis of historical truth. 6 As to the object of the book, we know not that any thing better has been said than by Kimchi in his commentary upon it; and his words will seem remarkable to those who remember our Lord's testimony to the same effect: This prophecy is written that it may be a lesson to the Jews; for a foreign nation, which was not of Israelitish descent, was inclined to repent, as soon as the prophet had accused and convinced them of their sin; and with perfect penitence they turned from their wickedness, while the Israelites had not repented, and turned from their iniquity, though the prophet had accused them both early and late. Accordingly, the book is designed to teach also that Godto whom be glory-will spare the penitent of whatsoever nation they are, and will pardon them, especially if they are numerous.' The peculiar character of the book of Jonah has afforded room for a number of commentaries and dissertations, large in proportion to the extent of the book. There is a commentary on the book by Theophylact, printed at Frankfort in 1549-there is also a commentary by Luther on the book, which was at first published separately at Wittenberg in 1526.— Then follow: Atropoei Commentarius in Jonam, Stetini, 1545; Junii Lectiones in Jonam Prophetam, Heidelberg, 1549; Feri Comm. in Jonam, Lugd., 1554; Bugenhagen, Jonas Propheta expositus, Vitemb., 1550; Selneccer, Auslegung über den Jonam, Nahum, Habacuc, Leipz., 1567; Tuscani Comm. in Jonam Prophetam, Magdeburg, 1579; Baronis Prælectiones XXXIX. in Jonam, Lond., 1572; Grynæi Enarratio Prophete Jona, Basil., 1581; Schadæi Synopsis præcipuorum locorum Jonce, Argent., 1588; King, Lectures upon Jonas, Lond., 1594; Feuardentii Comm. in Jonam Prophetam, Colon., 1594; Wolderi Auétodos prophetiarum Jonæ et Joelis, Viteb., 1605; Krackewizii Comm. in Jonam, Hamb., 1610; Milæi Erklärung des Propheten Jona, Heidelb., 1614; Schnepfii Comm. in Jonam, Rostochii, 1619; Mylius, Comment. Grammatico-Criticus in Jonam, Amstelod., 1701; Acosta, Comm. in Jonam, Ludg., 1641; Ursinus, Jonas Commentario ex optimorum veterum et recentium interpretum monimentis illustratus, Francof., 1642; Salinas Comm. in Jonam Prophetam, Ludg., 1652; Crocii Comm. in Jonam, Casselis, 1656; Scheidii Jonas Propheta, philologico Comm. expositus, Argent., 1659; Gerhardi Annotationes posthuma in Prophetas Amos et Jonam, Jenæ, 1663; Pfeiffer, Prælectiones in Prophetiam Jona, Viteb., 1671; Christiani Jonas Comm. illust., Lips., 1683; Leusden, Jonas illustratus per paraph. Chald., Masoram mag. et parv., et per trium præstantissimorum Rabbinorum (Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Kimchi), | etc., Traject., 1692; Outhof, Het Boek van den Prophet Jonas verklaardt, etc., Amsterd., 1723; Hardt, Enigmata prisci orbis. Helmstadt, 1723.-This extravagant but very ingenious work has a vastly long continuation of the title, which we cannot afford room for; the object of the author is to shew that the history of Jonah is symbolical; Jonah in the first part representing Manasseh, the ship the Hebrew state, the fish the king of Assyria, who after having taken Manasseh, restored him to his kingdom; and that in the sequel Jonas represents Josiah, who desired the ruin of Nineveh, and being disappointed in the hope that it would have been accomplished by the Medes, fell into melancholy, from which he was recalled to sentiments more accordant with the Divine mercy by the instructions of the prophets. Lessing, Observatt. in Vaticinia Jone et Nahumi, Chemnicii, 1780; Piper, Dissertatio critico-biblica historiam Jona, Gryphiæ, 1786; Adam, Die Sendungsgeschichte des Propheten Jona kritisch untersucht, und von Widersprüchen gerettet, Bonn, 1786; Hoepfner, Curarum criticarum et exegeticarum in LXX viralem versionem vaticiniorum Jona, Lips., 1787; Grimm, Der Prophet Jonus, etc., Düsseldorf, 1789; Fabricius, Ex Michlal Jophi...particula complectens prophetiam Jone, etc., Gotting., 1792-a work similar to that of Leusden above noticed; Griessdorff, De verisimillima librum Jona, etc., Vitemberg. 1793; Benjoin, Jonah, A faithful translation from the Original, with philological and explanatory Notes, Cambridge, 1796; Goldhorn, Excurse zum Buch Jonas, Leipz., 1803; Friedrichsen, Kritischer Ueberblick der merkwürdigsten Ansichten des Buchs Jona, Altona, 1817; Reindl, Die Sendung des Propheten Jonas nach Ninive, Bamberg, 1826; Laberenz, De vera libri Jona interpretatione Commentatio Exegetica, Fulda, 1836; Krahmer, Das Buch Jonas historisch kritisch untersucht, etc., 1846. [Fairbairn, Jonah, his Life, Character and Mission, 1849.] 3 But Jonah rose up to flee unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD, and went down to Joppa; and he found a ship going to Tarshish so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them unto Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. 4 T But the LORD sent out a great wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that the ship 'was like to be broken. 5 Then the mariners were afraid, and cried every man unto his god, and cast forth the wares that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it of them. But Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship; and he lay, and was fast asleep. 6 So the shipmaster came to him, and said unto him, What meanest thou, O sleeper? arise, call upon thy God, if so be that God will think upon us, that we perish not. 7 And they said every one to his fellow, Come, and let us cast lots, that we may know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonah. 8 Then said they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy country? and of what people art thou? 9 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear the LORD, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land. 10 Then were the men 'exceedingly afraid, and said unto him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the presence of the LORD, because he had told them. 11 Then said they unto him, What shall we do unto thee, that the sea "may be calm unto us? for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous. 7 12 And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you: for I know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. 13 Nevertheless the men 'rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not for the sea wrought, and was tempestuous against them. 14 Wherefore they cried unto the LORD, and said, We beseech thee, O LORD, we be 8 Heb. cast forth. 4 Heb. thought to be broken. 8 Heb. went. Heb. digged. 657 Verse 3. To flee unto Tarshish.'-Concerning the place to which Jonah designed to go, opinions have been greatly divided, according to all the varieties of explanation which have been applied to Tarshish in general, and to which we have had former occasions to allude. According to some it denotes the sea generally; and, accordingly, the Targum suggests that he intended simply to go to sea; and, the Mediterranean being intended, this must of course have led him in an opposite direction to that which he ought to have taken-westward instead of eastward. It is more generally understood, however, that a particular place is intended. Josephus says it was Tarsus, in Cilicia, the birthplace of St. Paul; and Tunis or Carthage in Africa, and Tartessus in Spain, have been offered as other alternatives. To us the last of these seems as probable as any. The object of Jonah would have led him to desire to take a very distant voyage, in the contrary direction to Nineveh, and these conditions are well answered by Tartessus; besides which we may observe that the people of the ship were manifestly Phoenicians-for they were foreigners and idolaters, and these were the only such men that Jonah was likely to find at Joppa: and that they understood his language also implies that they were not a nation more remotely foreign than the Phoenicians. And it was more likely that Jonah should find at Joppa a ship of theirs bound to Tartessus than to any of the other places; for Tartessus belonged to them, being an important colonial emporium with which they maintained a constant and extensive intercourse; which is not the case with respect to any of the other places which we have named. 5. Down into the sides of the ship.'-It is easiest to understand this to mean the sleeping-berths, which in the ships of the Phoenicians seem to have been, as they are now with us, constructed in or against the sides of the ships. We are aware of no evidence that the ancients had in their ships such things as swinging beds, or hammocks. 7. For whose cause this evil is upon us.'-It was a common notion among the ancient mariners that an extraordinary storm must be attributed to the indignation of the gods against some guilty person on board the ship. This was particularly so when there was anything so unusual or unseasonable in the storm as to suggest the idea of its being supernatural, as was probably the case in the present instance. Under similar circumstances, when the vessel which carried Diagoras was assailed by a storm, the sailors had no difficulty in concluding that it arose principally on account of that philosopher, who was an open professor of atheism. 15. Cast him forth into the sea.'-This was an obvious resource of sailors who became convinced that the storm by which they were endangered was owing to the presence of a particular person. There are other examples of guilty or suspected persons being thrown overboard on such occasions. The hesitation which the present mariners felt as to what they should do to Jonah to make the sea calm, is well illustrated by Archbishop Newcome by the following extract from the Argonautics of Orpheus : : And much they doubted in their prudent minds, In this case they attributed to the presence of Medea the storm by which the Argo was visited. 'a whale' is mentioned in the reference to this passage which our Saviour makes (Matt. xii. 40), the name, particularly as collated with the original, is to be understood not as the name of any one fish, but as a common name for the larger inhabitants of the deep. Until, therefore, it shall be proved that there is no 'great fish' capable of swallowing a man entire, the objection is equally ignorant and puerile. Colonel C. Hamilton Smith, looking at the matter with the eye of a zoologist, well observes (in art. WHALE in Kitto's Cyclopædia): If the text be literally taken, the transaction is plainly miraculous, and no longer within the sphere of zoological discussion. It may be observed, however, of cetaceous animals, that although less frequent in the Mediterranean than in the ocean, they are far from being unknown there. Joppa, now Jaffa, the very place whence Jonah set sail, displayed for ages in one of its pagan temples huge bones of a species of whale, which the legends of the place pretended were those of the dragon monster slain by Perseus, as represented in the Arkite mythus of that hero and Andromeda; and which remained in that spot till the conquering Romans carried them in triumph to the great city. Procopius mentions a huge sea-monster in the Propontis, taken during his præfecture of Constantinople, in the thirty-sixth year of Justinian (A.D. 562), after having destroyed vessels at certain inter SPERM WHALE: CACHALOT. |