I propose next to review the new critical theory as to the origin and character of the Book of Jonah. I select, as representing most fairly that theory, what Professor Driver says in his "Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament."

      No author whom I have read has a better conception of the design of the book; for as an exegete, Professor Driver has few superiors; but on the question of historicity he stands with the scholars whose symposium I have reviewed, and he assigns to the book a date so late as to render its historicity a matter of impossibility, unless its author was miraculously inspired to know the history, which he tacitly denies.

      I will state his position in his own words, and then consider seriatim the reasons by which he supports it. He says:

      On the historical character of the narrative opinions have differed widely. Quite irrespectively of the miraculous features in the narrative it must be admitted that there are indications that it is not strictly historical.

      The first of these "indications" which he mentions is set forth as follows:

      The sudden conversion on such a large scale as (without pressing single expressions) is evidently implied, of a great heathen population is contrary to analogy; nor is it easy to imagine a monarch of the type depicted in the Assyrian inscriptions behaving as the king of Nineveh is represented as acting in the presence of the Hebrew prophet (p. 303). [27]

      According to this mode of reasoning, an account of any sudden change in a great population, which is "contrary to analogy," is to be regarded as self-evidently unhistorical; and if one in a succession of kings is represented as acting a much humbler part than the others, it is difficult to imagine that the representation is true. I wonder, then, what Professor Driver thinks of the statement, contrary to all analogy, that three thousand persons were converted to Christ by a single discourse of Peter on the great Pentecost? And what does he think of the account of Sergius Paulus, who is said, contrary to the analogy of Roman Proconsuls, to have suddenly believed in Jesus after a brief interview with Paul and Barnabas? What does he think of the great waves of religious revolutions, quite similar to that on Pentecost, which have often characterized modern revivals in both Christian and heathen lands? Such reasoning would destroy all faith in the most striking events of history. But the critics of this new school, like the avowed enemies of the Bible, never reason thus except when they are seeking to set aside the historicity of some Bible narrative. Their antipathy to the belief of events that are contrary to analogy seem limited to Biblical events.

      The author's second reason is given in these words:

      It is remarkable, also, that the conversion of Nineveh, if it took place upon the scale described should have produced so little permanent effect; for the Assyrians are uniformly represented in the Old Testament as idolaters.

      Is it not equally remarkable that the frequent conversions of Israel under the Judges should have had so little permanent effect? That the conversion of Judah [28] under Hezekiah should have had so little permanent effect as to be followed immediately by the abominable idolatries of Manasseh's reign? Paul marveled that the Galatians had so soon turned away from him who called them, to another gospel--a backward revolution in less than three years; yet, all these things, remarkable as they were, actually took place. Is an account of something "remarkable" to be understood as indicating that the book containing it is not historical? If so, we must scout all history except that of the most commonplace character. The school to which Professor Driver belongs deals thus, I say again, only with the narratives of the Bible. And this mode of treatment is in the present instance the more remarkable from the consideration that although it is true that the Ninevites are represented in the Old Testament, when their religion is mentioned at all, as idolaters, they are not mentioned after the visit of Jonah till the reign of Pul, King of Assyria, who made a friendly alliance with Menahem, of Israel. Now Menahem came to the throne two years after the death of Jeroboam, and he had been reigning some years when Pul marched across the Euphrates; and if the visit of Jonah to Nineveh occurred some years before the death of Jeroboam, then we have a lapse of from five or six to a dozen or more years before Nineveh is mentioned again; and even then it is only her king who is mentioned, without a word as to the religious condition of her people. Now if Jonah did not believe that the repentance of the Ninevites would last through forty days, should it be considered very "remarkable" that we have no trace of it after a few years? [29]

      The third reason given by Professor Driver is more remarkable still. It is this:

      But in fact the structure of the narrative shows that the didactic purpose of the book is the author's chief aim. He introduces just those details that have a bearing upon this, while omitting others which, had his interest been in the history as such, might naturally have been mentioned; e. g., details as to the spot at which Jonah was cast on the island, and particulars as to the special sins of which the Ninevites were guilty.

      I wonder what man of sense ever attempted to write history with an "interest in the history as such," and without a didactic aim as his chief purpose in writing. Surely, no such historical writing can be found in the Bible. Even the four Gospels, though devoted to the most deeply interesting historical events that ever transpired on this old earth, had a didacticpurpose as their chief aim--the purpose, as John expresses it, of causing the readers to believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, and that believing they might obtain life through his name. History is said to be philosophy teaching by example; and if a narrative teaches nothing, if it has not a didactic purpose as its chief aim, then it is not history according to the accepted definition. And what wonderful omissions the author of the Book of Jonah was led to make by his didactic purpose! He failed to tell the exact spot where Jonah was thrown up; and what a loss to the modern tourist! I wonder if Jonah himself knew where he was thrown up. I wonder if he ever went back and tried to identify it. Surely, for the benefit of modern critics, he ought to have driven a stake there, or built a heap of stones; for why should the world be deprived of information so necessary to its spiritual welfare? And then, be omitted to mention the special sins of which the Ninevites were [30] guilty! True, everybody knew them, and every intelligent person knows now the sins to which idolatrous cities have been most addicted; but surely, if the author of Jonah had been a modern critic of the school of Driver, he would not have been so absorbed in his didactic purpose as to omit this needed information!

      After giving all these reasons for believing that the narrative in question is not "strictly historical," the author, on the same page, and in the very next paragraph makes the following statement:

      No doubt the materials of the narrative were supplied to the author by tradition, and rest ultimately upon a basis of fact; no doubt the outlines of the narrative are historical, and Jonah's preaching was actually successful at Nineveh (Luke xi. 30-32), though not upon the scale represented in the book.

      "No doubt" on the points here mentioned? "No doubt" that the narrative rests upon a basis of fact? "No doubt" that the outlines of the narrative are historical? "No doubt" that Jonah's preaching was actually successful at Nineveh? Why no doubt on these points, when everything else in the book is doubted or denied? If the author invented the fish story, and the gourd story, and the universal repentance of the Ninevites, why is there no doubt that he told the truth about the other details? There is nothing in the book itself to indicate such a difference, and there is nothing in contemporary history. Where, then, does Professor Driver obtain the conviction, free from all doubt, that so much of the story is true? The only clue that he gives us in his very quiet citation of Luke xi. 30-32. And what is found there? Why, those very statements of Jesus which the eight scholars in our symposium will not allow to have any bearing on [31] the historical character of the Book of Jonah. We there find the words, "For even as Jonah was a sign to the Ninevites, so shall also the Son of man be to this generation." "The men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, a greater than Jonah is here." Professor Driver, then, stands against our chosen eight on this point; for he affirms what they deny, that the statement of Jesus proves the historicity of the Book of Jonah in the particulars mentioned, that is, his being a sign to the Ninevites, and the repentance of the latter under his preaching. With him there is "no doubt" on these points. But right here there springs up a very serious question, to which Professor Driver ought to give a very serious answer. If the words of Jesus, to which he refers, prove that the narrative of Jonah rests "ultimately upon a basis of fact"; that the outlines of the narrative are historical, and that the Ninevites did actually repent, why does not his explicit declaration that "Jonah was three days and three nights in the bowels of the sea monster" prove that this also is historical? I am afraid, after all, that the ultimate reason for denying the credibility of the narrative is that which is the avowed reason of unbelievers--an unwillingness to accept the miraculous in the story--and this is the very essence of skepticism. That the kind of criticism in which Professor Driver and all belonging to the same school indulge, is incipient unbelief, becomes more and more apparent the more closely it is scrutinized, and the further its development progresses.

      Further on I propose to review Professor Driver's evidence for the late date of the Book of Jonah; but [32] under heading he has an argument which more properly belongs to the subject now before me, and I will notice it here. It is expressed thus:

      The non-mention of the name of the king of Nineveh, who plays such a prominent part in chapter three, may be taken as an implication that it was not known to the author of the book (p. 301).

      If the name of the king was not known to the author of the book, then of course, the author was not Jonah; neither was he one who had obtained full information from Jonah; but is the book, therefore, unhistorical? I can imagine an author who had learned correctly every detail except the king's name. It seems to me that the "non-mention" of the king's name has no bearing on the question either way; for if Jonah wrote it, his didactic purpose depended upon the repentance of the king, and not upon his name; and if a romancer of the fifth century B. C. wrote it, he could just as easily have invented the name of the king as to have invented as he is supposed to have done, the story of the fish and that of the gourd vine. The Book of Judith is a romance of about the character ascribed by our critics to the Book of Jonah; and the author of it does not hesitate to give the name of the imaginary Holofernes whose imaginary head the imaginary Judith cut off; then why should the author of the Book of Jonah, while manufacturing much of the story, have hesitated to put in the name of the king, whether he knew it or not?

      It is the custom of destructive critics to assign dates to the historical books of the Bible so far this side of the events as to render it impossible for their authors to have had accurate information. This they have done, [33] not only with Old Testament books, but with the Gospels and Acts; and this they have done with the Book of Jonah. Following their lead, Professor Driver and the less destructive school to which he belongs, have selected the fifth century B. C. as the date of this book; and as Jonah lived near the close of the ninth century, this leaves an interval of nearly four hundred years between the composition of the book and the events of his life. This would make no difference in case of the real inspiration of the author; but these critics grant to Bible writers no inspiration which could bring to their knowledge forgotten facts of the past, or that could guard them against errors in recording facts. So then it becomes us to examine the grounds on which so late a date is assigned to this book.

      The first evidence given by Driver is based upon the alleged use by the author of Aramaic words and forms, which did not come into use until the Babylonian captivity. After saying that the book can not have been written till long after the lifetime of Jonah himself, he adds: "This appears, (1) from the style, which has several Aramaisms, or other marks of a late age;" and he proceeds to specify a half dozen such words. I will not copy these and comment on them, seeing that the author himself almost immediately admits that there is nothing conclusive in the evidence.

      He says in the next paragraph:

      Some of the linguistic features might (possibly) be consistent with a preëxilic origin in Northern Israel (though they are more pronounced than those referred to page 177n): but taken as a whole, they are more naturally explained by the supposition that the book is a work of the post-exilic period, to which other considerations point with some cogency. [34]

      This is what a musician would style playing diminuendo. The confident assertion that the writing "has several Aramaisms," is followed by the admission that these may possibly be consistent with the early origin of the book, and this reduces the conclusion to a mere possibility.

      I now quote the second evidence:

      (2) From the Psalm in chapter two, which consists largely of reminiscences from Psalms (in the manner ofPsalms cxlii., cxliii., cxliv., 1-11), many of them not of early origin (compare verse 2, Psalms xviii., lxv., cxx., i.;verse 3, Psalms xviii., iv., xlii., vii.; verse 4, Psalms xxxi., xxii., Lam. iii., liv.; verse 5, Psalms xviii., iv., cxvi., iii., lxix., i.; verse 6, Psalms xxx., iii.; verse 7, Psalms cxlii., iii., xviii., vi.; verse 8, Psalms xxxi., vi.; verse 9, Psalms l., xiv., cxvi., xvii., iii., viii.): a Psalm of Jonah's own age would certainly have been more original as it would also have shown a more antique coloring.

      Lest the reader should fail to look up these references, and to make the comparisons necessary in order to see the force of the evidence, I shall copy the passages referred to in full. I shall do this for another reason--because it is quite the custom of these critics to present an array of references which scarcely anybody will have the patience to study out, but which will be taken by many as conclusive proof that the learned and laborious author has by hard labor learned the absolute truth of what he is writing. A severe test of some of these groups of figures now and then is a healthy exercise for the reader and it often proves a bombshell under the writer. Below I give the verses in Jonah's psalm cited above, and those in other psalms of which it is claimed that they are reminiscences. [35]

      Now, the only thoughts common to these passages are those of calling upon, or crying to God in distress, and being heard by him; and these are so commonplace in the experiences of praying people, that to find them expressed in similar terms by different authors, is no evidence at all that one copies from another.

      The only identical thought common to any two of these three passages, is that respecting God's waves and billows; and there is no ground for assuming that in either there is a reminiscence from the other. In the latter instance the writer is speaking figuratively of his troubles, which he compares to waves and billows going [36] over him, a very common comparison for one living by the sea; and Jonah, when in the fish's bowels, had no reason to remember the psalm in order to say that the waves and billows were rolling over him.

      The idea of being "cut off," when in great trouble, is the only one common to these passages; but surely it is, too commonplace to justify the assumption of a reminiscence. It occurs dozens of times in the Old Testament, as any one can see by a mere glance at a Concordance.

      While we have here a striking reminiscence in one of the psalms from the other, the only appearance of reminiscence between either and Jonah is, found in the [37] clauses, "The waters are come in unto my soul," and, "the waters compassed me about even to the soul." This is very probably a reminiscence; for the thought of waters, either real, or figuratively so-called, so pressing around one as to reach his soul, is quite original, and is not likely to have originated with two writers independently. But if David wrote the Sixty-ninth Psalm, as its inscription asserts, or if it was written by any one who lived between David and Jonah, then a reminiscence from it in the Book of Jonah does not prove a date for the latter this side the prophet's own lifetime. To serve the purpose of our critic, it must be proved that the psalm was written too late for the author of the Book of Jonah to have seen it, and, at the same time, to have had authentic knowledge of Jonah's career. This can not be done.

      Here everything turns upon the use o f the word pit. To go down to the pit is a common expression in many Old Testament writers (see Concordance) for death; and to fall into a pit, for any sudden calamity. When, therefore, it is said by Jonah, "Thou hast brought up my life from the pit," he was using a commonplace figure of speech, but reversing the direction of the thought, as his deliverance from death required. Instead [38] of a reminiscence from the Thirtieth Psalm, there is here only the use of an expression very common among his countrymen.

      Here we have the identical expression, "My soul fainted within me," and the identical thought that the prayer of the man in distress came in unto the Lord; but both the expression and the thought are commonplace, and give no evidence that the author of either poem had seen the other.

      The term vanities occurs a number of times in the Old Testament, being found in Deuteronomy (xxxii. 21), I. Kings (xvi. 13, 26), and in other books; but the expression "lying vanities" is found only in these two places, and it is probably a reminiscence in one or the other. If the psalm, as its superscription asserts, was written by David, the author of Jonah may have borrowed the expression from it; but if the psalm was [39] written after the captivity, then the author of it may have borrowed from Jonah.

      In the identical expression, "sacrifice of thanksgiving," found in the two psalms, there is undoubtedly a reminiscence; but the expression is found in the Book of Leviticus, where it occurs repeatedly (see vii. 12, 13; xxii. 29), and this book was written, according to the received chronology, more than five hundred years before the time of Jonah. But as this does not suit our critics, who deny the Mosaic authorship of Leviticus, we must tell them that it also occurs in the Book of Amos, who, as they all admit, was a contemporary of Jonah. Amos says to Israel: "Offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving of that which is leavened; and proclaim free-will offerings, and publish them" (iv. 5). If, then, it is a reminiscence in Jonah, it could have been taken from Amos, and it is idle to claim that it was taken from psalms written four hundred years later. But after all, the author of Jonah does not use the exact expression, or express the exact idea found in Amos, in the law, and in the Psalms; for his words are not, "I will offer the sacrifices of thanksgiving"; but, "I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving." [40]

      As to the thought expressed at the close of verse 9, "Salvation is of the Lord"; and in the Third Psalm, "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord"; it is expressed so often in nearly the same words, and is a thought so commonplace in itself, that it furnished no evidence of a reminiscence.

      We have now gone over this whole formidable list of "reminiscences, and we have found only two or three of them which call with any plausibility be so called. It is easy to see that the critic who compiled it took up every verse, and every clause of every verse in the poem of Jonah, and with Concordance in hand ransacked all the Psalms which he supposed of late date, together with other late writings, in search of words, phrases, and thoughts, which he could say were borrowed from these by the author of Jonah. This is a very cheap show of learning; for a boy twelve years old could do the work. The result is the empty basket which we have just turned bottom upward.

      If the attempt had been a success, we should have found every single sentence in this beautiful poem of Jonah a borrowed scrap from the pen of some real poet, and the whole would have been a "patch quilt," without a piece of original goods to be seen. I venture the assertion that so excellent a poem as this was never composed in this way since the world began; and it never will be. On the contrary, it would be most natural for poets writing at a later day, and being perfectly familiar with this poem to borrow, some one, and some another, of its fine passages, and use them in their own compositions. But natural as this is, it was not done except in two or three instances at most, and these we have pointed out above. [41]