Nineveh trusted in Elohim (D ON"); that is, they were convinced that He was the real God and had the power to carry out His menaces (comp. Gen. xv. 6; Num. xiv. 11; 1 Sam. xxvii. 12; see also Ps. cxix. 66; Job xxxix. 12). It is true that in connection with the heathen Ninevites the appellation is employed, not the holy name 77 (vers. 5, 8, 9; comp. Gen. xiv. 19 and 22); but even if this were a deliberate purpose on the author's part (comp. supra i. 6, 10, 14, 16), it would not justify the inference that the god in whom the Ninevites believed was not the God of the Hebrews, but 'their own chief deity whom they adored' (so, strangely, Ebn Ezra and others), since it is also who saw their repentance and revoked the evil decree (ver. 10). Yet that view has in our time not only been repeated but enlarged; Jonah, it is maintained, merely 'effected a kind of general conversion of the inhabitants,' for the circumstance that, in their case, no such explicit statement of pious worship is made as with reference to the mariners (i. 14-16), proves that they then 'feared and sought to placate God without any break in the continuity of the national worship of Assur' (Huxtable 1. c. pp. 576, 582, 600). opinion, prompted by the desire to account for the silence of the Assyrian records about so extraordinary an event, is invalidated not only by the whole tenour of the narrative which represents the Ninevites as devoutly revering the God of Jonah, but by the distinct statement na wionu, which words should not be translated, 'they believed the word or announcement of God' (Targ. " pp); Ebn Ezra This 77; Engl. Vers. 'they believed God'), but they believed in God' Himself (comp infra on iv. 4-11). It was not necessary to the effect of his preaching,' observes Layard (Nin. and Babyl. p. 632), 'that Jonah should be of the religion of the people of Nineveh. I have known a Christian priest frighten a whole Mussulman town to tents and repentance by publicly proclaiming that he had received a divine mission to announce a coming earthquake or plague.' Although such parallels are valuable in proving the Eastern character as most readily impressionable, espe- ,Jonah fled and entered a ship :(יטְל יְהוָה not) וַיהוָה הֵטִיל but God, on His part, sent a tempest. Perhaps in order to indicate such a juxtaposition, the Masorites, in both cases, furnished the noun (717) in ver. 4, and ? in ver. 5) with the strongly distinctive accent revia.-7y, instead of D (Ezek. xxvi. 16, etc.) see supra p. 236.-7 (in Zech. xi. 3 splendour, glory), here that costly tunic of Assyrian monarchs above described, is a splendid cloak of honour worn by the wealthy or distinguished, like ermine or purple (Targ. ; Philo, De Jon. c. 37, rex (Targ.np; wb; regalem purpuram cum throno in saccum vertebat; Kimchi by mabon ; Luther seinen Purpur; Sept. only rok; but Syr. his diadem); comp. Josh. vii. 21, yg man, proving that such raiments of particular value were manufactured in the regions of the Euphrates and Tigris (comp. Layard, Nineveh, i. 136; ii. 319, 321): yet the word denotes also that humble 'hairy garment' (y) or rough dress of hair cloth worn by prophets (Zech. xiii. 4; 1 Ki. xix. 13, 19; 2 Ki. ii. 13, 14; comp. i. 8; Gen. xxv. 25); for the roots 7 and 777 imply originally the notion of amplitude or largeness, the more costly eastern robes also being wide or falling down in folds. Alexander the Great, mourning for Hephaestion, threw into the flames of the funeral pile, among other precious objects, ἐσθῆτα τὴν μέγα τιμίαν ἐν Πέρσαις (Ael. Var. Hist. vii. 8).—In Ezekiel's description of the fall and humiliation of Tyre (xxvi. 16), the princes of the sea 'come down from their thrones (IND), put off their embroidered ,(חרדות ילבשו) clothe themselves in terror ,(רקמתם) garments and sit upon the ground' (comp. 2 Sam. xii. 16, 17; xiii. 31). -7, in the intransitive sense of covering oneself or being covered, which it more commonly bears in Hithpael (comp. ver. 8), is here construed with the simple accusative (comp. Gramm. § 102. 3), though it occurs also with (Gen. xxxviii. 14; Deut. xxii. 12); it is therefore unnecessary to assume (7 .ver) וַיַּזְעֲק .(.Ebn Ezra etc) ויכס בשרו שק an ellipsis like has transitive meaning, so that the succeeding is almost equivalent to N, the king 'caused an edict to be proclaimed as follows' (the Sept. has the impersonal passive, kai ikηpúzǝŋ kai éppen, as if reading py).-hen Dyop is S by decree of the king (see supra p. 236), Targ. 'na, Vulg. ex ore regis, Sept. merely пαρà тоυ Basiλéws, and Jewish expositors vaguely on nsyn (Rashi, Ebn Ezra, Kimchi, etc.). Whether the noun Dy or Dy, used for mandate in the Aramaic dialects, was in the Assyrian language also the ordinary term for the same notion and is hence in this place used by the author technically, is uncertain. The are the king's counsellors and grandees (Sept. μɛyıGraves, Vulg. principes), whose authority added weight to the charge in the eyes of the people, comp. Ezr. vii. 28, 75 bon by; 2 Ki. x. 11; Nah. iii. 17, where those גְדוֹלִים .Dan ;טַפְסְרִים and מִנְזָרִים Assyrian magnates are called iv. 33; vi. 18, 77. It would be unsafe to infer from this passage that the nobles were in some manner constitutionally connected with the government of the kingdom and thus tempered its arbitrariness, as we know now from the monuments no less than from the records of history that 'the Assyrian monarch was a thorough Eastern despot, unchecked by popular opinion, and having complete power over the lives and property of his subjects, rather adored a god than feared as a man' (Layard, Nin. and Babyl. p. 632). as With our present means of information, it is entirely impossible to determine Jonah's king of Nineveh. He must have been a near predecessor of Pul (Phulukh, Ivalush) who, about B. C. 770, waged war against Syria and Menahem king of Israel, as well as against Edom and Philistia, and exacted enormous tribute (comp. 2 Ki. xv. 19; 1 Chr. v. 26; see Comm. on Gen. p. 291); but the names of monarchs in that period read on the inscriptions by various decipherers are too uncertain and conflicting to afford a foundation even for conjecture, and no useful purpose would be served by quoting them. The prince who, chronologically, is most probable is Vul-nirari III. (B. C. 812-783), concerning whose reign we have very copious records; but he seems to have displayed an exceptionally ardent zeal for his national gods; for we learn that he and his wife Sammuramit dedicated two statues in Nebo's temple in the south-eastern corner of Nimroud, built a new sanctuary to Nebo and Merodach at Kouyunjik, and paid constant homage to his deities.-About the year 800, we know, the Assyrian empire was considerably weakened by the revolt and secession of Media and Babylon; but this 'destruction of the older Assyrian monarchy' was followed by a restoration and even a remarkable increase of power finally broken only about two hundred years later. There is something plausible in the supposition that Jonah's arrival in Nineveh and the immediate reformation of the people arrested, for the time, the complete downfall of the empire, which seemed imminent after the successful rebellion of two of the most important provinces. But even this surmise has hardly any historical support. According to our Book, Assyria did not suffer at all in Jonah's time, but was absolutely pardoned; and the king as pourtrayed in the Book is very different from that corrupt, licentious and effeminate Sardanapalus, who is related to have reigned when the older Assyrian monarchy was shaken. Many antiquaries in earlier and recent times have identified that king with Pul (so Calmet, Usser, Grotius, Rawlinson, etc.), others with Sardanapalus (Scaliger, etc.), and others again with anterior. or subsequent rulers: but we must resign ourselves till Assyrian discoveries bearing on that epoch are more complete (comp. Ménant, Annales des Rois d'Assyrie, pp. 99 sqq., 130 sqq.; Can. Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies, ii. 103 sqq., 122 sqq.) The Midrash (Yalk. Jon. § 550) considers the king to be that Asnapper (Ezra iv. 10) of whom it cannot even be ascertained whether he was a sovereign (Shalmanezer or Esar-haddon) or only an Assyrian satrap (comp. 2 Ki. xvii. 24). The king's decree or proclamation reaches to the end of the ninth verse (NN); the execution of his commands is indeed not expressly stated, but it' is implied in the tenth verse, the brevity of which is not abruptness, but harmonises. with the pregnant style of the Book. That omission has induced several ancient and modern interpreters to confine |