In the cuneiform monuments the name of Nineveh, "Ninua," is exclusively given to the locality of Kouyunjik and Nebbi Yunas, where there stood a city nearly eight miles in circuit,

Assur-nazir-pal; 825, by Samsi-vul IV.; and subsequently by others.

Shalmaneser I., 1300-1271, is stated by Assur-nazir-pal (Mén. p. 27) to have "built" Nrd. ("Calah"); but unless the notice in Gen. X. II, 12 is an addition to Moses's history made by a later hand, Shalmaneser must have found there a city previously existing, which he only restored or enlarged. Shalmaneser I. likewise built a palace at Kjk. (G. S. p. 140), where also inscriptions are found of Tugulti-ninip I.,

1271-1240.

Mugtagil-nusku, 1170—1150, and Assur-risilim, 1150-1120, rebuilt Shalmaneser's palace at Kjk.

Assur-nazir-pal, 885-860, rebuilt Ishtar's temple and built a palace (N. W.) at Kjk. and also the Ziggurat with a temple to Nebo in N. W. corner of Nrd., making Nrd. the chief object of his care (Rawl. 1. p. 98), palace after palace rising on the lofty platform. It was at this time that the seat of government was transferred from Assur (G. S. p. 51).

Shalmaneser II., 860-825, built the Centre Palace at Nrd., completing also the Ziggurat : he also rebuilt the palace and temple at Kjk.

Samsi-vul IV., 825-812, raised a stelé at Nrd. as well as adorned Ishtar's temple at Kjk. Vul-nirari III., 812-783, and his wife Sammuramit, dedicated two statues in Nebo's temple in the S. E. corner of Nrd.: he also built the upper chambers at Nrd. (Layard, Nin. and Bab.' p. 358): likewise a palace at Nebbi Yunas, and a new temple to Nebo and Merodach at Kjk.

In the scanty records relating to Shalmaneser III., Assur-dan III., and Assur-nirari II., i.e. from 783 to 745, we have no details of buildings.

Tiglath-Pileser II., 745-727, repaired the Centre Palace of Shalmaneser II. at Nrd. and built a new one there, the S. E. palace; he also built a palace at Kjk. at the bend of the river Khosr.

Of the reign of Shalmaneser IV., 727-722, we have no Assyrian records at all.

Sargon, 722-705, repaired Assur-nazir-pal's N. W. palace at Nrd. and at Kjk. repaired the temples, but devoted his chief cares to the construction of his own new palace and city at Khorsabad, "Dur-Sargina.'

Sennacherib, 705-681, once more renewed the glories of Kjk. as the chief royal residence, building a new palace in the S. W. part, the greatest of all Assyrian palaces hitherto found (G. S.), covering eight acres of ground; as well as two new palaces at Nebbi Yunas. "The great walls round Nineveh were also his work" ('G. S.' p. 93).

Esarhaddon, 681-668, built a palace at Nebbi Yunas, the S. W. palace at Nrd. and a smaller one at Shereef Khan, N. W. of Kjk.

Assur-bani-pal, 668-626, at Kjk. built a palace near to his grandfather's, and some structures at Nebbi Yunas,

which, at least from the time of Sennacherib (705-681), was surrounded by strongly fortified walls: what fortifications it possessed before the time of Sennacherib, as, e.g., in the time of Jonah, does not appear. Sargon, e.g., repeatedly mentions his own new city as "near to Nineveh" (Menant, Annales des Rois d'Assyrie,' pp. 196, 197), and as designed to "resemble Nineveh" (ib. p. 202). So in the early record of Gen. x. 11 Nineveh is named as separate from Calah (now Nimroud). But it seems a very probable assumption, that as the Assyrian monarchy came into contact with the south-western extremity of Asia, occidentals, when wishing to speak of the capital of their mighty neighbour, instead of naming two or three cities, had recourse to the name of Nineveh, which was at once the largest, and also the nearest to themselves, to cover the whole; although at other times, when they wished to specify a particular locality, they would use the word in its stricter sense, as Isaiah appears to do in Isai. xxxvii. 37; for Nineveh proper was, as we know, Sennacherib's favourite city. We may compare the stricter and the wider use of the name of "London."

Besides Nineveh and Calah, there were doubtless scattered over the plain, which stretches north-eastward from that part of the Tigris where it flows between Kouyunjik and Nimroud to the hills Mar-Daniel and Jebel Maklub, various other towns and villages. At the present day this plain is studded with ruins which have been as yet very imperfectly explored. We can point, e.g., to Selamiyeh, a ruin of considerable extent, which is conjectured to be the "Resen" of Gen. x: 12, and to Keremlis, inscriptionally named "City of," some god not phonetically known. The "Rehoboth-Ir" of Gen. x. 11, i. e. "streets (or open spaces, or suburbs) of the city," probably designated some other locality in this vicinity; for the words in v. 12, "the same is the great city," seemingly mark the four places named before as forming one whole. Cf. note in loc., and Schrader's KeilInschriften und das A. T.' p. 23. Closely connected as the great imperial cities were with each other politically, and bound together of course by continual intercommunication, the intervening country could not fail to become especially populous. The probability amounts almost to certainty that the plain between the two great homes of Assyrian empire was during the 9th, 8th, and 7th centuries before Christ sprinkled over thickly with a population which might very well amount to the six or seven hundred thousand suggested by Jonah iv. 11.

Whether this "great city" was at any time marked as one whole by the enclosure of a circuit of walls is a difficult question to decide. The authenticated fact that Babylon was surrounded by an enceinte of some fifty or sixty

miles (Rawlinson, Ancient Monarchies,' II. p. 512), makes it appear likely that Babylon's great neighbour and rival had a similarly wide enclosure. Diodorus ('Bibl.' II. 3) stateswhere he got his information we know not; possibly from Ctesias, to whom he occasionally refers, and who lived in the Persian court about 400 B. C.-that Nineveh formed a quad rangle 150 stadia long and 90 broad, which gives a circuit of nearly sixty miles. This agrees very fairly with the dimensions of the rhombus, of which Nimroud and Khorsabad should form the acute angles at the south and north respectively; Kouyunjik, the obtuse angle towards the west, and Keremlis the much more obtuse angle towards the east: for according to the estimate of Capt. Felix Jones, I. N., the distance from Kouyunjik to Nimroud is eighteen miles; from Nimroud to Khorsabad about twenty-eight; and from Khorsabad to Kouyunjik fourteen (see 'Topography of Nineveh,' in the 15th vol. of Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, and the reduced map of Capt. Jones in Dr Pusey's 'Min. Proph.' p. 255). Diodorus adds further particulars of the magnitude of those fortifications, due possibly to his applying to the whole real or supposed circuit dimensions true only of Sennacherib's walls round Nineveh proper, of which Canon Rawlinson gives an account in his history (Vol. I. p. 257). The absence of all remains authenticating this wide circuit of walls does not appear fatal to the probability of its having existed; for a similar objection lies against the vast enceinte round Babylon, which nevertheless we are not at liberty to reject. If ever there was a wall round the whole of the "great city," it may have vanished, either through being, from strategic motives, purposely removed, or through being superseded by the stronger fortifications, first of Khorsabad by Sargon, and then of Nineveh proper by Sennacherib, both of which came into being later than Jonah. But, however, our belief that "the great city," Nineveh, had dimensions far beyond those of the platform of Kouyunjik and Nebbi Yunas, has no necessary connection with the acceptance of Diodorus's statements, or with the belief in the existence of any walled enclosure. Without this adjunct, it tallies perfectly with the tradition embodied by Strabo (XVI. 1, 5), that Nineveh was larger than Babylon. Mr Layard observes, "Nineveh might be compared with Damascus, Ispahan, or perhaps more appropriately with Delhi, a city rebuilt at various periods, but never on exactly the same site, and whose ruins consequently cover an area but little inferior to that assigned to the capital of Assyria" ('Bibl. Dictionary,' Vol. II. p. 554). In a later work, 'Nineveh and Babylon, abridged from his larger work' (1867), Mr Layard writes: "After repeated careful examinations of the ruins and of the spaces enclosed by the ramparts of earth"

[referring to Nimroud, Kouyunjik and Khorsabad], "I am still inclined to the opinion that they were royal dwellings with their dependent buildings and parks or paradises, fortified like the palace-temples of Egypt, capable of standing a prolonged siege, and places of refuge for the inhabitants in case of invasion. They may have been called by different names, but they were all included within the area of that great city known to the Jews and to the Greeks as Nineveh. I will not venture to say that the whole of this vast space was thickly inhabited or built upon. We must not judge of Eastern cities by those of Europe. In Asia, gardens and orchards, containing suburbs, and even distinct villages collected round a walled city, are all included by the natives under one general name. Such is the case with Ispahan and Damascus, and such I believe it to have been with ancient Nineveh. It appears to be quite inconsistent with Eastern customs, as well as with historic testimony, to place within so short a distance of each other several great and distinct cities. Recent researches have in no way shaken the opinion that I ventured to express in my former work, partly founded upon arguments derived from the fact of each of these separate fortified palaces having been built by different kings."

5. Does Jonah's miraculous history in any way serve to explain the belief of the Ninevites in his message? It is true that our Lord spoke of Jonah being "a sign to the Ninevites," as He Himself was afterwards to be to the "generation" around Him (Luke xi. 30); and there can be no question that He thereby referred to the fact of Jonah's having come to the Ninevites supernaturally, after a kind of resurrection: but though Jonah's appearing at Nineveh was in reality a "miracle," through the marvellous train of circumstances which brought him there, it does not therefore follow that our Lord thought of the Ninevites as aware of this character attaching to Jonah's apparition among them. And how should they be? On the one hand, the Phoenician mariners, who in fact could only be cognizant of Jonah's being swallowed up by the fish, if indeed they were even of that, had, moreover, gone on to Tarshish in the far west; and on the other, it does not seem probable that any persons on the sea-board of Syria who were acquainted with any of the circumstances, if such there were, had come to Nineveh before Jonah arrived there, or that any report of the strange story had in any other way reached this so far distant city. It only re. mains to question, whether Jonah himself spoke of it at Nineveh. This does not seem likely. In the sequel Jonah shews too little sympathy for the Ninevites to warrant us in supposing that he would be inclined of his own accord to go beyond the strict line of his message.

CHAP. IV. 1. it displeased Jonah] Rather, "it grieved Jonah," as the same phrase is rendered by A. V., Neh. ii. 10, xiii. 8. Literally, "it was evil with Jonah with very great evilness," "evil" often in Hebrew meaning "sorrow," as Gen. xl. 7; Deut. xv. Io; I S. i. 8; Neh. ii. 2.

So LXX., Vulg., Hitzig, Keil. This was probably after the forty days had expired without the threatening being fulfilled. See note on v. 5.

he was very angry] This is unquestionably the common meaning of the Hebrew phrase, lit. "it was hot to Jonah." It is probably its meaning even in 1 S. xv. 11 (“it grieved Samuel," A. V.) and 2 S. vi. 8 ("David was displeased," A. V.), where it has been supposed by many to express grief rather than resentment. There certainly does not appear to be any ground for thus modifying its meaning in the present instance. Jonah shews himself in his behaviour so extremely wayward, that it is perfectly conceivable that he was not merely grieved, but angry, when he saw the city not destroyed. He might reflect that in the eyes of men he had been made a fool of; for how could the world know the actual circumstances of the case? He might also feel vexed by the reflection, that he had in his own despite been forced to be the means of saving a city which Jehovah had been on the very point of destroying, and which the instincts of a narrow patriotism prompted him to wish destroyed. See above, p. 582, Excursus A, iv., and note on ch. i. 3.

2. he prayed] This refers, not in particular to the request in v. 3 that God would take away his life, but, much as in ch. ii. 1, to his whole communing with God upon the subject. For, in estimating Jonah's character, it is very material to observe that he did then pray: this shews that his was no sullen revolt from God-for then he would not have prayed at all-but an inward conflict rather, in which, instead of abandoning himself to feelings

which he knew to be wrong though he knew not how to master, he frankly made his complaint to God, striving if he might to get at one with himself and with his God. If while the discontent had still rankled within, he had made show outwardly of pious submission, his behaviour would, it is true, have

appeared to less disadvantage before men, but if man is now disposed to judge the prophet with severe and wondering disapprobation, Jehovah shewed His acceptance on the whole of His honest though wilful servant, both by His care for his present accommodation and by His whole moral treatment of him.

I pray thee] In Hebrew it is, as Jerome says, an interjection of coaxing deprecation (videtur interjectio deprecantis significare blandientis affectum). So ch. i. 14; Gen. 1. 17; Isai. lviii. 3, &c. Jonah thereby submissively craves leave to speak his mind.

was not this my saying] I thought this would be the result of my preaching. Comp. Exod. xiv. 12.

I fled before] I prevented it by fleeing; lit. "I prevented to flee," i.e. "I hastened to get away before I should be exposed to such mortification."

a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness] We have the same words in Exod. xxxiv. 6 (Heb.) and in Joel ii. 13, in which latter passage, as here (see note on ch. iii. 9), is added, “and repentest thee of the evil."

repentest thee] repenting thee. The Hebrew word is a participle. the evil] Whatever evil from time to time Thou threatenest.

3. take...my life] Or rather, my soul. In making this request, Jonah might plead the example of Moses in his hour of weary vexation (Num. xi. 15), and the more recent example of Elijah (1 K. xix. 4), whose history his own so much resembles. See Introd. P. 580. Here again we observe (see note on i. 12) that there is no thought of self-murder: the prophet commits himself still to the disposal of God.

than to live] To be pointed at as a false pretender; with my mission to my own people a failure; with my mission to Gentile Nineveh, after perhaps to prove its ruin. Let me not already the shame of impenitent Israel, heresee my wretchedness (Num. xi. 15).

4. Doest thou well to be angry?] The words may mean either, "Art thou doing well in being angry?" or, as in the margin, "Art thou greatly angry?" The latter rendering is probably the right one. The word

5 So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat

rendered "greatly" is an infinitive, meaning either "to act well" generally, or "to do a certain thing well." In the latter sense this infinitive frequently stands as an adverb, denoting thoroughness, as Deut. ix. 21, "very small;" xiii. 14, "diligently," xvii. 4, xix. 18; xxvii. 8, "very plainly;" 2 K. xi. 18; Micah vii. 3, "earnestly." So it is taken here by LXX., Targ., Syr., Arab., Mercer, Henderson. This view is somewhat favoured in v. 9 by the answer: "I am greatly angry, even unto death," where the words "even unto death" look like a climax to "greatly." The objection of Dr Pusey, that this infinitive when used as an intensive is found only with verbs expressing activity, and never with verbs denoting a passion or quality merely, is met by the observation, that in the one rendering as much as in the other it is Jonah's active nursing of his wrath that is the thing censured, and not his being a passive subject of emotion. The question thus rendered would mean, "Can it be, ought it to be, that thou art so indignant "-here, "at Nineveh being spared?" -in v. 9, "at the palmcrist perishing?" But the other sense of the verb, i.e. "to act well," as Gen. iv. 7; Isai. i. 17; Jer. x. 5, is the one preferred by Symmachus, Jerome, Theodoret, and the great majority of modern critics. This gives us the sense, "Art thou doing well in being angry?" the literal construction being, either "Art thou well-doingly angry?" or "Is this to do well that thou art angry?" Thus rendered, the question reminds us of the remonstrance addressed to Cain, "Why art thou angry? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?" Gen. iv. 6, 7. With either rendering, we are struck by the gentleness with which Jehovah merely suggests a reproof; a representation true to the facts of usual experience: it is thus He is wont, whether by inward or by outward warning, to reprove His erring servants.

5. So Jonah went out of the city, &c.] Now Jonah had gone out of the city, and abode on the east side of the city; and there he had made him a booth, and had sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city. So Theodoret, Rosenmüller, and others. The close of the verse makes it probable that the particulars here stated occurred before Jonah had become aware that the city was spared, and therefore before that access of angry feeling described in the preceding verses. These particulars are not stated till now, because there was no especial interest in them except as introducing the story which follows. On the other hand, the

under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

6 And the LORD God prepared a

writer would naturally follow up the account of the repentance of the Ninevites with the mention at once of Jehovah's remission of the threatened judgment, and then again of the consequent displeasure of the prophet. Jonah, we may suppose, went out of the city as soon as he had sufficiently proclaimed his message: and it would almost seem that he had no occasion to continue proclaiming it beyond one single day. He would no doubt have been a welcome guest there in many a house, or even palace; but his habits of feeling would indispose him to put himself upon these terms with the people of Nineveh; besides, had he not himself pronounced the place to be doomed? He went forth therefore, and took up his abode on "the east side of the city;" on some rising ground, we may suppose, not far off, such as the Jebel Maklub or the more distant Kurdish hills, whence he could command a view of the city. There he remained till the forty days were expired, when he perceived that Jehovah had forborne to execute the sentence which he had certainly been commissioned to denounce. He had no difficulty in divining the cause of its remission, having in fact himself anticipated it (v. 2). It is possible that he received some more direct intimation of the fact; but of this there is no proof, and no such intimation was required. After the interlocution stated, vv. 2-4, Jonah still continued in his booth, till the circumstances took place mentioned in the following verses.

booth] He made a shed, we may suppose, by wattling together boughs which he cut down from trees. See note on Gen. xxxiii, 17.

Deity, rare except in Gen. ii. and iii., occurs 6. the LORD God] This designation of the in this book only here. The explanations which have been offered of the phenomenon, whether by sceptical or by devout critics, appear alike fanciful; as likewise do those of the interchanges between the designations "the Lord" and "God," observable in the subsequent verses.

prepared] appointed. See note on ch. i. 17. A particular specimen, already growing on the spot, amongst perhaps others, was set apart by God to overshadow Jonah; and in order thereto had its naturally rapid growth miraculously accelerated.

gourd] palmerist. The Hebrew word kikajon is translated "gourd" by LXX., followed by the Syriac and Arabic versions (whence this view became the established tradition of the Mahommedans), by Luther, Calvin (doubtfully), and A. V. For this view of its meaning no other evidence is alleged than the authority of those ancient versions. In Aquila,