Chapter XXXVI

. on “The Great Fish and What it Means.” Here it is only

necessary to mention that the metaphor was borrowed, not, as has been alleged by many, from some Greek, or other foreign, myth, which, like that of Perseus and Andromeda, had its scene in the neighbourhood of Joppa, but from a Semitic mythology which was well known to the Hebrews, and the materials of which were employed very frequently by other prophets and poets of the Old Testament.[1488]

Why, of all prophets, Jonah should have been selected as the type of Israel, is a question hard but perhaps not impossible to answer. In history Jonah appears only as concerned with Israel’s reconquest of her lands from the heathen. Did the author of the book say: I will take such a man, one to whom tradition attributes no outlook beyond Israel’s own territories, for none could be so typical of Israel, narrow, selfish and with no love for the world beyond herself? Or did the author know some story about a journey of Jonah to Niniveh, or at least some discourse by Jonah against the great city? Elijah went to Sarepta, Elisha took God’s word to Damascus: may there not have been, though we are ignorant of it, some connection between Niniveh and the labours of Elisha’s successor? Thirty years after Jonah appeared, Amos proclaimed the judgment of Jehovah upon foreign nations, with the destruction of their capitals; about the year 755 he clearly enforced, as equal with Israel’s own, the moral responsibility of the heathen to the God of righteousness. May not Jonah, almost the contemporary of Amos, have denounced Niniveh in the same way? Would not some tradition of this serve as the nucleus of history, round which our author built his allegory? It is possible that Jonah proclaimed doom upon Niniveh; yet those who are familiar with the prophesying of Amos, Hosea, and, in his younger days, Isaiah, will deem it hardly probable. For why do all these prophets exhibit such reserve in even naming Assyria, if Israel had already through Jonah entered into such articulate relations with Niniveh? We must, therefore, admit our ignorance of the reasons which led our author to choose Jonah as a type of Israel. We can only conjecture that it may have been because Jonah was a prophet, whom history identified only with Israel’s narrower interests. If, during subsequent centuries, a tradition had risen of Jonah’s journey to Niniveh or of his discourse against her, such a tradition has probability against it.

* * * * *

A more definite origin for the book than any yet given has been suggested by Professor Budde.[1489] The Second Book of Chronicles refers to a _Midrash of the Book of the Kings_[1490] for further

## particulars concerning King Joash. A _Midrash_[1491] was the expansion,

for doctrinal or homiletic purposes, of a passage of Scripture, and very frequently took the form, so dear to Orientals, of parable or invented story about the subject of the text. We have examples of Midrashim among the Apocrypha, in the Books of Tobit and Susannah and in the Prayer of Manasseh, the same as is probably referred to by the Chronicler.[1492] That the Chronicler himself used the _Midrash of the Book of the Kings_ as material for his own book is obvious from the form of the latter and its adaptation of the historical narratives of the Book of Kings.[1493] The Book of Daniel may also be reckoned among the Midrashim, and Budde now proposes to add to their number the Book of Jonah. It may be doubted whether this distinguished critic is right in supposing that the book formed the Midrash to 2 Kings xiv. 25 ff. (the author being desirous to add to the expression there of Jehovah’s pity upon Israel some expression of His pity upon the heathen), or that it was extracted just as it stands, in proof of which Budde points to its abrupt beginning and end. We have seen another reason for the latter;[1494] and it is very improbable that the Midrashim, so largely the basis of the Books of Chronicles, shared that spirit of universalism which inspires the Book of Jonah.[1495] But we may well believe that it was in some Midrash of the Book of Kings that the author of the Book of Jonah found the basis of the latter part of his immortal work, which too clearly reflects the fortunes and conduct of all Israel to have been wholly drawn from a Midrash upon the story of the individual prophet Jonah.

4. OUR LORD’S USE OF THE BOOK.

We have seen, then, that the Book of Jonah is not actual history, but the enforcement of a profound religious truth nearer to the level of the New Testament than anything else in the Old, and cast in the form of Christ’s own parables. The full proof of this can be made clear only by the detailed exposition of the book. There is, however, one other question, which is relevant to the argument. Christ Himself has employed the story of Jonah. Does His use of it involve His authority for the opinion that it is a story of real facts?

Two passages of the Gospels contain the words of our Lord upon Jonah: Matt. xii. 39, 41, and Luke xi. 29, 30.[1496] _A generation, wicked and adulterous, seeketh a sign, and sign shall not be given it, save the sign of the prophet Jonah.... The men of Niniveh shall stand up in the Judgment with this generation, and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, a greater than Jonah is here. This generation is an evil generation: it seeketh a sign; and sign shall not be given it, except the sign of Jonah. For as Jonah was a sign to the Ninivites, so also shall the Son of Man be to this generation._

These words, of course, are compatible with the opinion that the Book of Jonah is a record of real fact. The only question is, are they also compatible with the opinion that the Book of Jonah is a parable? Many say No; and they allege that those of us who hold this opinion are denying, or at least ignoring, the testimony of our Lord; or that we are taking away the whole force of the parallel which He drew. This is a question of interpretation, not of faith. We do not believe that our Lord had any thought of confirming or not confirming the historic character of the story. His purpose was purely one of exhortation, and we feel the grounds of that exhortation to be just as strong, when we have proven the Book of Jonah to be a parable. Christ is using an illustration: it surely matters not whether that illustration be drawn from the realms of fact or of poetry. Again and again in their discourses to the people do men use illustrations and enforcements drawn from traditions of the past. Do we, even when the historical value of these traditions is _very_ ambiguous, give a single thought to the question of their historical character? We never think of it. It is enough for us that the tradition is popularly accepted and familiar. And we cannot deny to our Lord that which we claim for ourselves.[1497] Even conservative writers admit this. In his recent Introduction to Jonah Orelli says expressly: “It is not, indeed, proved with conclusive necessity that, if the resurrection of Jesus was a physical fact, Jonah’s abode in the fish’s belly must also be just as historical.”[1498]

Upon the general question of our Lord’s authority in matters of criticism, His own words with regard to personal questions may be appositely quoted: _Man, who made Me a judge or divider over you? I am come not to judge ... but to save._ Such matters our Lord surely leaves to ourselves, and we have to decide them by our reason, our common-sense and our loyalty to truth—of all of which He Himself is the creator, and of which we shall have to render to Him an account at the last. Let us remember this, and we shall use them with equal liberty and reverence. _Bringing every thought into subjection to Christ_ is surely just using our knowledge, our reason, and every other intellectual gift which He has given us, with the accuracy and the courage of His own Spirit.

5. THE UNITY OF THE BOOK.

The next question is that of the Unity of the Book. Several attempts have been made to prove from discrepancies, some real and some alleged, that the book is a compilation of stories from several different hands. But these essays are too artificial to have obtained any adherence from critics; and the few real discrepancies of narrative from which they start are due, as we have seen, rather to the license of a writer of parable than to any difference of authorship.[1499]

In the question of the Unity of the Book, the Prayer or Psalm in chap. ii. offers a problem of its own, consisting as it does almost entirely of passages parallel to others in the Psalter. Besides a number of religious phrases, which are too general for us to say that one prayer has borrowed them from another,[1500] there are several unmistakeable repetitions of the Psalms.[1501]

And yet the Psalm of Jonah has strong features, which, so far as we know, are original to it. The horror of the great deep has nowhere in the Old Testament been described with such power or with such conciseness. So far, then, the Psalm is not a mere string of quotations, but a living unity. Did the author of the book himself insert it where it stands? Against this it has been urged that the Psalm is not the prayer of a man inside a fish, but of one who on dry land celebrates a deliverance from drowning, and that if the author of the narrative himself had inserted it, he would rather have done so after ver. 11, which records the prophet’s escape from the fish.[1502] And a usual theory of the origin of the Psalm is that a later editor, having found the Psalm ready-made and in a collection where it was perhaps attributed to Jonah,[1503] inserted it after ver. 2, which records that Jonah did pray from the belly of the fish, and inserted it there the more readily, because it seemed right for a book which had found its place among the Twelve Prophets to contribute, as all the others did, some actual discourse of the prophet whose name it bore.[1504] This, however, is not probable. Whether the original author found the Psalm ready to his hand or made it, there is a great deal to be said for the opinion of the earlier critics,[1505] that he himself inserted it, and just where it now stands. For, from the standpoint of the writer, Jonah was already saved, when he was taken up by the fish—saved from the deep into which he had been cast by the sailors, and the dangers of which the Psalm so vividly describes. However impossible it be for us to conceive of the compilation of a Psalm (even though full of quotations) by a man in Jonah’s position,[1506] it was consistent with the standpoint of a writer who had just affirmed that the fish was expressly _appointed by Jehovah_, in order to save his penitent servant from the sea. To argue that the Psalm is an intrusion is therefore not only unnecessary, but it betrays failure to appreciate the standpoint of the writer. Given the fish and the Divine purpose of the fish, the Psalm is intelligible and appears at its proper place. It were more reasonable indeed to argue that the fish itself is an insertion. Besides, as we shall see, the spirit of the Psalm is national; in conformity with the truth underlying the book, it is a Psalm of Israel as a whole.

If this be correct, we have the Book of Jonah as it came from the hands of its author. The text is in wonderfully good condition, due to the ease of the narrative and its late date. The Greek version exhibits the usual proportion of clerical errors and mistranslations,[1507] omissions[1508] and amplifications,[1509] with some variant readings[1510] and other changes that will be noted in the verses themselves.

FOOTNOTES:

[1458] Unless the Psalm were counted as such. See below, p. 511.

[1459] _Minus_ Ruth of course.

[1460] Cf. with Jonah i. 1, וַיְהִי, Josh. i. 1, 1 Sam. i. 1, 2 Sam. i. 1. The corrupt state of the text of Ezek. i. 1 does not permit us to adduce it also as a parallel.

[1461] See below, p. 496.

[1462] See above, Vol. I., p. 236.

[1463] Acts xi. 8.

[1464] Cf. Gittah-hepher, Josh. xix. 13, by some held to be El Meshhed, three miles north-east of Nazareth. The tomb of Jonah is pointed out there.

[1465] 2 Kings xiv. 25.

[1466] Cf. Kuenen, _Einl._, II. 417, 418.

[1467] iii. 3: היתה, _was_.

[1468] See above, pp. 21 ff., 96 ff.

[1469] Cf. George Smith, _Assyrian Discoveries_, p. 94; Sayce, _Ancient Empires of the East_, p. 141. Cf. previous note.

[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. 14_a_, 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.

[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.

[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.

[1500] _To Thy holy temple_, vv. 5 and 8: cf. Psalm v. 8, etc. _The waters have come round me to my very soul_, ver. 6: cf. Psalm lxix. 2. _And Thou broughtest up my life_, ver. 7: cf. Psalm xxx. 4. _When my soul fainted upon me_, ver. 8: cf. Psalm cxlii. 4, etc. _With the voice of thanksgiving_, ver. 10: cf. Psalm xlii. 5. The reff. are to the Heb. text.

[1501] Cf. ver. 3 with Psalm xviii. 7; ver. 4 with Psalm xlii. 8; ver. 5 with Psalm xxxi. 23; ver. 9 with Psalm xxxi. 7, and ver. 10 with Psalm l. 14.

[1502] Budde, as above, p. 42.

[1503] De Wette, Knobel, Kuenen.

[1504] Budde.

[1505] _E.g._ Hitzig.

[1506] Luther says of Jonah’s prayer, that “he did not speak with these exact words in the belly of the fish, nor placed them so orderly, but he shows how he took courage, and what sort of thoughts his heart had, when he stood in such a battle with death.” We recognise in this Psalm “the recollection of the confidence with which Jonah hoped towards God, that since he had been rescued in so wonderful a way from death in the waves, He would also bring him out of the night of his grave into the light of day.”

[1507] ii. 5, B has λαόν for ναόν; i. 9, for עברי it reads עבדי, and takes the י to be abbreviation for יהוה; ii. 7, for בעדי it reads בעלי and translates κάτοχοι; iv. 11, for ישׁ־בהּ it reads ישׁבו, and translates κατοικοῦσι.

[1508] i. 4, גדולה, perhaps rightly omitted before following גדול; i. 8, B omits the clause באשר to לנו, probably rightly, for it is needless, though supplied by Codd. A, Q; iii. 9, one verb, μετανοήσει, for ישוב ונחם, probably correctly, see below.

[1509] i. 2, ἡ κραυγὴ τῆς κακίας for רעתם; ii. 3, τὸν θεόν μου after יהוה; ii. 10, in obedience to another reading; iii. 2, τὸ ἔμπροσθεν after קראיה; iii. 8, לאמר.

[1510] iii. 4, 8.

##