Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LA 46 (1996) 9-32
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH
A. Niccacci
As in other similar studies, I have established three levels of the narrative text:main narrative line, secondary line (antecedent information, or setting of thestory), and direct speech.1 Main-line verb forms are placed on the right mar-gin of the page. Background constructions, i.e. secondary-line constructionsconnected with a preceding wayyiqtol, are also placed on the right margin andare marked with an arrow (↑). Antecedent (setting) constructions, i.e. thoseconnected with a following wayyiqtol, are indented to the left. Direct speechis further indented to the left.
1. The Narrative TextMain narrative line
Secondary line (antecedent information)Direct speech
1:1
(a) Afterwards the word of the Lord came rOmaEl yA;tImSa_NRb hÎnwøy_lRa hÎwh◊y_rAb√;d yIh◊yÅw
to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying,
1:2
(a) “Arise, M…wq
(b) go to Nineveh, that great city, hDlwød◊…gAh ryIoDh hw◊nyn_lRa JKEl
(c) and call upon her, DhyRlDo a∂rVq…w
(d) for their wickedness has come up yÎnDpVl MDtDo∂r hDtVlDo_yI;k
before me.”
1. I have presented my theory on the Biblical Hebrew verb system in The Syntax of the Verbin Classical Hebrew Prose, Sheffield 1990. An application of the theory to complete texts isfound in Lettura sintattica della prosa ebraico-biblica. Principi e applicazioni, Jerusalem1991, as well as in later studies: “Diluvio, sintassi e metodo,” LA 44 (1994) 9-46; “Analysisof Biblical Narrative,” in: R.D. Bergen (ed.), Biblical Hebrew and Discourse Linguistics,Dallas 1994, 175-198; “Syntactic Analysis of Ruth,” LA 45 (1995) 69-106; and “NarrativeSyntax of Exodus 19-24” (to be published by E.J. Brill in the Biblical Interpretation Seriesin late 1997).
A. NICCACCI10
1:3
(a) But Jonah rose to flee to Tarshish from the hÎwh◊y y´nVpI;lIm hDvyIv√rA;t AjOrVbIl hÎnwøy M∂qÎ¥yÅw
presence of the Lord.
(b) He went down to Joppa wøpÎy d®r¥yÅw
(c) and found a ship going to Tarshish. vyIv√rAt hDaD;b hÎ¥yˆnDa aDxVmˆ¥yÅw
(d) He paid the fare for it ;h∂rDkVc NE;tˆ¥yÅw
(e) and went on board, to go with hÎwh◊y y´nVpI;lIm hDvyIv√rA;t MRhD;mIo awøbDl ;hD;b d®r´¥yÅw
them to Tarshish, away from the presence of the Lord;
1:4
(a) but soon after the Lord hurled a great wind MÎ¥yAh_lRa hDlwød◊…g_Aj…wr lyIfEh hÎwhyÅw ↑
upon the sea.
(b) Thus, there came a mighty tempest on the sea, MÎ¥yA;b lwødÎ…g_rAoAs yIh◊yÅw
(c) so that the ship threatened to break up. rEbDÚvIhVl hDbVÚvIj hÎ¥yˆnFaDh◊w ↑
1:5
(a) Then the mariners were afraid, MyIjD;lA;mAh …wa√ryˆ¥yÅw
(b) and cried each one to his god. wyDhølTa_lRa vyIa …wqSo◊zˆ¥yÅw
(c) They threw the wares MRhyElSoEm léqDhVl MÎ¥yAh_lRa hÎ¥yˆnFaD;b rRvSa MyIlE;kAh_tRa …wlIfÎ¥yÅw
that were in the ship into the sea, to lighten it for them,
(d) while Jonah went down into the inner part of hÎnyIpV;sAh yEtV;k√rÅy_lRa dårÎy hÎnwøy◊w ↑
the ship.
(e) He laid down bA;kVvˆ¥yÅw
(f) and fall asleep. Måd∂r¥yÅw
1:6
(a) So the captain approached him lEbOjAh bår wyDlEa bårVqˆ¥yÅw
(b) and said to him, wøl rRmaø¥yÅw
(c) “What are you doing asleep? M∂;d√rˆn ÔKV;l_hAm
(d) Arise, M…wq
(e) call upon your god! ÔKyRhølTa_lRa a∂rVq
(f) Perhaps the god will give a thought to us, …wnDl MyIhølTaDh tEÚvAoVtˆy yAl…wa
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 11
(g) so that we will not perish.” dEbaøn aøl◊w
1:7
(a) And they said to one another, …whEoér_lRa vyIa …wrVmaø¥yÅw
(b) “Come, …wkVl
(c) let us cast lots, twøl∂rwøg hDlyIÚpÅn◊w
(d) that we may know hDo√d´n◊w
(e) on whose account this evil …has come …wnDl taøΩzAh hDo∂rDh yImV;lRvV;b
upon us.”
(f) So they cast lots, twøl∂rwø…g …wlIÚpÅ¥yÅw
(g) and the lot fell upon Jonah. hÎnwøy_lAo l∂rwø…gAh lOÚpˆ¥yÅw
1:8
(a) Then they said to him, wyDlEa …wrVmaø¥yÅw
(b) “Tell us, …wnDl aÎ…n_h∂dyˆ…gAh
(c) on whose account this evil has come …wnDl taøΩzAh hDo∂rDh_yImVl rRvSaA;b
upon us?
(d) What is your occupation? ÔKV;tVkaAlV;m_hAm
(e) And whence do you come? awøbD;t NyAaEm…w
(f) What is your country? ÔKRx√rAa hDm
(g) And of what people are you?” hD;tDa MAo h‰ΩzIm_yEa◊w
1:9
(a) He said to them, MRhyElSa rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) “I am a Hebrew; yIkOnDa yîrVbIo
(c) and it is the Lord, the God of aérÎy yˆnSa MˆyAmDÚvAh yEhølTa hÎwh◊y_tRa◊w
heaven, that I fear,
(d) who made the sea and the dry land.” hDvD;bÅ¥yAh_tRa◊w MÎ¥yAh_tRa hDcDo_rRvSa
1:10
(a) Then the men were exceedingly afraid, hDlwød◊g hDa√rˆy MyIvÎnSaDh …wa√ryˆ¥yÅw
(b) and said to him, wyDlEa …wrVmaø¥yÅw
(c) “Why have you done this?” DtyIcDo taøΩz_hAm
A. NICCACCI12
(d) For the men knew MyIvÎnSaDh …wo√dÎy_yI;k ↑
(e) that from the presence of the Lord he was fleeing, AjérOb a…wh hÎwh◊y y´nVpI;lIm_yI;k ↑
(f) because he had told them. MRhDl dyˆ…gIh yI;k ↑
1:11
(a) Then they said to him, wyDlEa …wrVmaø¥yÅw
(b) “What shall we do to you, JKD;l hRcSoÅ…n_hAm
(c) that the sea may quiet down for us?” …wnyElDoEm MÎ¥yAh qO;tVvˆy◊w
(d) For the sea grew more and more tempestuous. rEoOs◊w JKElwøh MÎ¥yAh yI;k ↑
1:12
(a) He said to them, MRhyElSa rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) “Take me up yˆn…waDc
(c) and throw me into the sea, MÎ¥yAh_lRa ynUlyIfShÅw
(d) that the sea will quiet down for you; MRkyElSoEm MÎ¥yAh qO;tVvˆy◊w
(e) for I know yˆnDa Aoédwøy yI;k
(f) that it is because of me that this MRkyElSo h‰ΩzAh lwødÎ…gAh rAoA;sAh yI;lRvVb yI;k
great tempest has come upon you.”
1:13
(a) Nevertheless the men rowed hard to return hDvD;bÅ¥yAh_lRa byIvDhVl MyIvÎnSaDh …wrV;tVjÅ¥yÅw
back to land,
(b) but they could not, …wlOkÎy aøl◊w
(c) for the sea grew more and more tempestuous MRhyElSo rEoOs◊w JKElwøh MÎ¥yAh yI;k ↑
against them.
1:14
(a) Therefore they cried to the Lord, hÎwh◊y_lRa …wa√rVqˆ¥yÅw
(b) and said, …wrVmaø¥yÅw
(c) “We beseech you, o Lord, hÎwh◊y hÎ…nDa
(d) let us not perish for this man’s life, h‰ΩzAh vyIaDh vRp‰nV;b h∂dVbaøn aÎn_lAa
(e) and lay not on us innocent blood; ayIqÎn M∂;d …wnyElDo NE;tI;t_lAa◊w
(f) for you, o Lord, hÎwh◊y hD;tAa_yI;k
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 13
(g) as it pleased you, D;tVxApDj rRvSaA;k
(h) you have done.” DtyIcDo
1:15
(a) So they took up Jonah hÎnwøy_tRa …waVcˆ¥yÅw
(b) and threw him into the sea; MÎ¥yAh_lRa …whUlIf◊yÅw
(c) and the sea ceased from its raging. wøÚpVoÅΩzIm MÎ¥yAh dOmSoÅ¥yÅw
1:16
(a) Then the men feared the Lord exceedingly, hÎwh◊y_tRa hDlwød◊g hDa√rˆy MyIvÎnSaDh …wa√ryˆ¥yÅw
(b) and they offered a sacrifice to the Lord hÎwhyAl jAb‰z_…wjV;b◊zˆ¥yÅw
(c) and made vows. Myîr∂d◊n …wr√;dˆ¥yÅw
2:1=1:17 RSV
(a) Then the Lord appointed a great fish to hÎnwøy_tRa AoølVbIl lwødÎ…g g∂;d hÎwh◊y NAm◊yÅw
swallow up Jonah;
(b) and Jonah was in the belly of twølyEl hDvølVv…w MyImÎy hDvølVv g∂;dAh yEoVmI;b hÎnwøy yIh◊yÅw
the fish three days and three nights.
2:2=2:1 RSV
(a) Then Jonah prayed to the Lord his hÎg∂;dAh yEoV;mIm wyDhølTa hÎwh◊y_lRa hÎnwøy lE;lAÚpVtˆ¥yÅw
God from the belly of the fish,
2:3=2:2 RSV
(a) and said (…) rRmaø¥yÅw
2:3-10 = 2:2-9 RSV is poetry, see § 3 below
2:11=2:10 RSV
(a) The Lord then spoke to the fish, g∂;dAl hÎwh◊y rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) and it vomited out Jonah toward the dry land. hDvD;bÅ¥yAh_lRa hÎnwøy_tRa aéqÎ¥yÅw
3:1
(a) Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah rOmaEl tyˆnEv hÎnwøy_lRa hÎwh◊y_rAb√d yIh◊yÅw
the second time, saying,
A. NICCACCI14
3:2
(a) “Arise, M…wq
(b) go to Nineveh, that great city, hDlwød◊…gAh ryIoDh hw◊nyn_lRa JKEl
(c) and proclaim to it the message hDayîrV;qAh_tRa DhyRlEa a∂rVqˆ…w
(d) that I will tell you.” ÔKyRlEa rEbO;d yIkOnDa rRvSa
3:3
(a) So Jonah arose hÎnwøy M∂qÎ¥yÅw
(b) and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. hÎwh◊y rAb√dI;k h‰w◊nyˆn_lRa JKRl´¥yÅw
(c) Now Nineveh was a MyImÎy tRvølVv JKAlShAm MyIhølaEl hDlwød◊…g_ryIo hDt◊yDh h´w◊nyˆn◊w ↑
city great to God the breadth of three days’ journey.
3:4
(a) Jonah began to go into the city for a dDjRa Mwøy JKAlShAm ryIoDb awøbDl hÎnwøy lRjÎ¥yÅw
day’s journey.
(b) He cried, a∂rVq¥yÅw
(c) and said, rAmaø¥yÅw
(d) “In yet forty days, Mwøy MyIoD;b√rAa dwøo
(e) Nineveh shall be overthrown!” tRkDÚpVh‰n h´w◊nyˆn◊w
3:5
(a) And the people of Nineveh believed God; MyIhølaE;b h´w◊nyˆn yEv◊nAa …wnyImSaÅ¥yÅw
(b) they proclaimed a fast, Mwøx_…wa√rVqˆ¥yÅw
(c) and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them MD…nAfVq_dAo◊w MDlwød◊…gIm MyI;qAc …wvV;bVlˆ¥yÅw
to the smallest of them.
3:6
(a) Then the news reached the king of Nineveh. h´w◊nyˆn KRlRm_lRa rDb∂;dAh oÅ…gˆ¥yÅw
(b) He arose from his throne, wøaVsI;kIm M∂qÎ¥yÅw
(c) removed his robe, wyDlDoEm wø;t√rå;dAa rEbSoÅ¥yÅw
(d) covered himself with sackcloth, qAc sAk◊yÅw
(e) and sat in ashes. rRpEaDh_lAo bRv¥yÅw
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 15
3:7
(a) And he made proclamation qEo◊zÅ¥yÅw
(b) and said through Nineveh by the rOmaEl wyDlOd◊g…w JKRlR;mAh MAoAÚfIm h´w◊nyˆnV;b rRmaø¥yÅw
decree of the king and his nobles saying,
(c) “Man or beast, herd or flock, Naø…xAh◊w r∂qD;bAh hDmEhV;bAh◊w M∂dDaDh
(d) let them not taste anything; hDm…waVm …wmSoVfy_lAa
(e) let them not graze, …wo√rˆy_lAa
(f) as well as let them not drink water, …w;tVvˆy_lAa MˆyAm…w
3:8
(a) but let them be covered with sackcloth, hDmEhV;bAh◊w M∂dDaDh MyI;qAc …w;sA;kVtˆy◊w
both man and beast,
(b) and let them cry mightily to God; h∂q◊zDjV;b MyIhølTa_lRa …wa√rVqy◊w
(c) yea, let every one turn from his evil way hDo∂rDh wø;k√rå;dIm vyIa …wbUvÎy◊w
(d) and from the violence which is in his hands. MRhyEÚpAkV;b rRvSa sDmDjRh_NIm…w
3:9
(a) Who knows, he will again b…wvÎy Aoédwøy_yIm
(b) repent, God, MyIhølTaDh MAjˆn◊w
(c) and he will turn from his fierce anger, wøÚpAa NwørSjEm bDv◊w
(d) so that we will not perish?” dEbaøn aøl◊w
3:10
(a) Thus God saw their deeds, MRhyEcSoAm_tRa MyIhølTaDh a√rÅ¥yÅw
(b) that they turned from their evil way, hDo∂rDh MD;k√rå;dIm …wbDv_yI;k ↑
(c) and God repented of the evil hDo∂rDh_lAo MyIhølTaDh MRjÎ…nˆ¥yÅw
(d) which he had said he would do to them, MRhDl_twøcSoAl rR;bî;d_rRvSa ↑
(e) and he did not do. hDcDo aøl◊w
4:1
(a) But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, hDlwød◊g hDo∂r hÎnwøy_lRa oår´¥yÅw
(b) and he was angry. wøl rAj¥yÅw
A. NICCACCI16
4:2
(a) He prayed to the Lord hÎwh◊y_lRa lE;lAÚpVt¥yÅw
(b) and said, rAmaø¥yÅw
(c) “I pray you, Lord, hÎwh◊y hÎ…nDa
(d) is not this my word when I was yItDm√dAa_lAo yItwøyTh_dAo yîrDb√d h‰z_awølSh
yet in my country?
(e) That is why I made haste to flee to hDvyIv√rA;t AjOrVbIl yI;tVmå;dIq NE;k_lAo
Tarshish;
(f) for I knew yI;tVoådÎy yI;k
(g) that hDo∂rDh_lAo MDjˆn◊w dRsRj_bår◊w MˆyAÚpAa JK®rRa M…wjår◊w N…w…nAj_lEa hD;tAa yI;k
you are a gracious and merciful God, slow to anger and abounding in love, and one who re-
pents of evil.
4:3
(a) Therefore now, o Lord, hÎwh◊y hD;tAo◊w
(b) take my life from me, I beseech you, yˆ…nR;mIm yIvVpÅn_tRa aÎn_jåq
(c) for it is better for me to die than to live.” yD¥yAjEm yItwøm bwøf yI;k
4:4
(a) And the Lord said, hÎwh◊y rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) “Did you rightly become angry?” KDl h∂rDj bEfyEhAh
4:5
(a) Then Jonah went out of the city ryIoDh_NIm hÎnwøy aEx¥yÅw
(b) and sat to the east of the city, ryIoDl M®d®;qIm bRv´¥yÅw
(c) and made a booth for himself there. hD;kUs MDv wøl cAoÅ¥yÅw
(d) He sat under it in the shade, lE…xA;b DhyR;tVjA;t bRv´¥yÅw
(e) till he would see hRa√rˆy rRvSa dAo ↑
(f) what would happen in the city. ryIoD;b h‰yVhˆ¥y_hAm ↑
4:6
(a) And the Lord God appointed a plant, Nwøy∂qyIq MyIhølTa_hÎwh◊y NAm◊yÅw
(b) and made it come up wøtDo∂rEm wøl lyI…xAhVl wøvaør_lAo lEx twøyVhIl hÎnwøyVl lAoEm lAoÅ¥yÅw
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 17
over Jonah, that it might be a shade over his head, to save him from his distress.
(c) So Jonah was exceedingly glad because of hDlwød◊g hDjVmIc Nwøy∂qyI;qAh_lAo hÎnwøy jAmVcˆ¥yÅw
the plant.
4:7
But when dawn came up the next day, t∂rFjD;mAl rAjAÚvAh twølSoA;b tAoAlwø;t MyIhølTaDh NAm◊yÅw
God appointed a worm;
it attacked the plant, Nwøy∂qyI;qAh_tRa JKA;tÅw
and it withered. vDby¥yÅw
4:8
(a) But when the sun rose, vRmRÚvAh AjOr◊zI;k yIh◊yÅw
(b) God appointed a sultry east wind, tyIvyîrSj Myîd∂q Aj…wr MyIhølTa NAm◊yÅw
(c) and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah hÎnwøy vaør_lAo vRmRÚvAh JKA;tÅw
(d) so that he was faint; PD;lAoVt¥yÅw
(e) and he asked his soul to die, t…wmDl wøvVpÅn_tRa lAaVvˆ¥yÅw
(f) and said, rRmaø¥yÅw
(g) “It is better for me to die than to live.” yD¥yAjEm yItwøm bwøf
4:9
(a) But God said to Jonah, hÎnwøy_lRa MyIhølTa rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) “Did you rightly become angry for the Nwøy∂qyI;qAh_lAo ÔKVl_h∂rDj bEfyEhAh
plant?”
(c) And he said, rRmaø¥yÅw
(d) “I rightly became angry unto death.” t‰wDm_dAo yIl_h∂rDj bEfyEh
4:10
(a) And the Lord said, hÎwh◊y rRmaø¥yÅw
(b) “You felt pity for the plant, Nwøy∂qyI;qAh_lAo D;tVsAj hD;tAa
(c) for which you did not labor, wø;b D;tVlAmDo_aøl rRvSa
(d) nor did you make it grow, wø;tVlå;dˆg aøl◊w
(e) which in a night came into being, hÎyDh hDl◊yAl_NI;bRv
A. NICCACCI18
(f) and in a night perished. dDbDa hDl◊yAl_NIb…w
4:11
(a) And should not I pity hDlwød◊…gAh ryIoDh h´w◊nyˆn_lAo s…wjDa aøl yˆnSaÅw
Nineveh, that great city,
(b) in which there are more M∂dDa wø;bîr hérVcRo_MyE;tVvIm hE;b√rAh ;hD;b_v‰y rRvSa
than a hundred and twenty thousand persons
(c) who do not know their hD;bår hDmEhVb…w wølaømVcIl wønyIm◊y_NyE;b oådÎy_aøl rRvSa
right hand from their left, and also much cattle?”
2. Grammatical Analysis
1:1-5 The Jonah novella begins with narrative wayyiqtol (1:1a) and goeson with a chain of selfsame verb forms that constitutes the main line, or thebackbone of the story (1:3a-e). The negative counterpart of narrative wayyiq-tol is welö∑ + qatal (e.g. 1:13b).
In 1:1a wayehî is “full verb,” in the sense that the following noun phraseis its subject (as in 3:1a and 3:3c, differently from 4:8a; see below).2
Sentence 1:4a is a waw-x-qatal construction different from wayyiqtoland constituting a break in the narrative chain. Indeed, every constructionof the secondary level in historical narrative – i.e. the non-verbal clause,weqatal, and waw-x-yiqtol besides waw-x-qatal – needs to rely on themain-line verb form, i.e. narrative wayyiqtol, and this narrative wayyiqtolcan precede or follow. In 1:4a, waw-x-qatal is probably connected withthe preceding wayyiqtol rather than with the following one.3 This decision
2. In “Organizzazione canonica della Bibbia ebraica. Tra sintassi e retorica,” RivBiblIt 43(1995) 9-29, esp. p. 19, I have interpreted the appearance of a wayyiqtol at the beginning ofseveral biblical books (Leviticus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, 1Samuel, 2Samuel, 2Kings,Ezekiel, Ruth, and Esther) as sign of a conscious canonical organization in the Hebrew Bible.I suggested that because the Book of Jonah follows that of Obadiah both in the Hebrew and inthe Greek canon, the initial wayehî connects the Book of Jonah precisely with that of Obadiah.Now, the last words in Obadiah are as follows: “and the kingdom shall be the Lord’s”; the in-tended meaning would be: precisely because he is the sovereign of all peoples, the Lord or-dered Jonah to go and preach to the Ninevites to repent. Support for this interpretation maycome from the fact that the Minor Prophets traditionally formed a single book called “TheTwelve.”
3. The other possibility is to refer the waw-x-qatal to the following wayyiqtol. In this case,
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 19
is taken on semantic reasons. First, a link exists between the two sentences1:3e and 1:4a, established by the divine name Yahweh. Second, a furtherlink is represented by the roots yärad “to go down” and †ûl Hifil “to hurl,”which appear both here and in 1:5 but in reverse order, i.e. in the tenseshifts ‘wayyëred → waw-x + hë†îl’ in 1:3e-4a, and ‘wayyä†ilû → waw-x +yärad’ in 1:5c-d. From the point of view of aspect, the tense shift‘wayyiqtol → waw-x-qatal’ in 1:3e-4a expresses the immediateness of thedivine action.4 As a rule, waw-x-qatal communicates an information asbackground to wayyiqtol. The two sentences – the one with wayyiqtol andthe one waw-x-qatal – make up one indivisible grammatical unit composedof foreground and background. Thus, the break produced in the narrativemain line by waw-x-qatal is definitely not significant;5 it only represents apause in the flow of communication. This is a syntactical means availableto the biblical author to convey his information in a structured and mean-ingful way. Note that the verb forms used are the basic means to achievethis goal.6
Two more waw-x-qatal constructions are present in 1:4c and 1:5d. Bothare connected with a preceding narrative wayyiqtol. We translate, therefore:“There came a mighty tempest on the sea, so that (or: and immediately) the
it would convey an antecedent information to the new episode of the story (see Syntax§§ 15-18). Syntax does not provide criteria do decide. Literary interpretation and semanticsmust help.
4. If we had another wayyiqtol instead of waw-x-qatal, the information would be simply suc-cessive to the previous one: “He went on board… and then the Lord hurled a great wind…” Inother words, the grammatical construction suggests that the Lord intervened as soon as theysailed on open sea. This interpretation accords with the fact that the sailors tried to bring theship back to land but did not succeed (1:13). Alternatively, one could interpret the divine in-tervention as direct reaction to Jonah’s flight: “and as a consequence God hurled a greatwind…” The main issue is that this information is conveyed as dependent on the previous one(i.e. background) while the exact relationship may vary from one context to the other and alsofrom one interpreter to the other.
5. That is, it does not constitute the beginning of a new text in the sense of the following defi-nition by H. Weinrich: “A text is a logical (i.e. intelligible and consistent) sequence of linguis-tic signs, placed between two significant breaks in communication;” see my Syntax of the Verbin Classical Hebrew Prose, Sheffield 1990, § 36, p. 56. The original definition is found in H.Weinrich, Tempus. Besprochene und erzählte Welt, 4th ed., Stuttgart 1985, 11.
6. Time and again I insisted on the necessity for the interpreters to try to understand and re-spect the way an author shapes his information. We are not allowed to reshape it at our owntaste as is easily done by historical literary critics. This is to be understood as a cautionary re-minder, not as a rejection of the historical-critical method as such. See my papers on the floodnarrative and on the Sinai pericope: “Diluvio, sintassi e metodo,” and “Narrative Syntax ofExodus 19-24,” respectively.
A. NICCACCI20
ship threatened to break up.7 Then the mariners were afraid and cried… Theythrew… while Jonah went down into the inner part of the ship.”8
1:6 Sentence (c) contains a participle without article, nirdäm, which iscircumstantial to the previous pronominal suffix – a usage similar to that ofthe circumstantial participle in Greek.9 In fact, in other cases the phrase mah-
llekä is followed by an adverbial expression, either the adverb pöh “here”(“What is your business here?”: Judg. 18:3; 1Kgs. 19:9, 13) or a kî + qatalconstruction (“What happened to you that you joined such a company?”:Judg. 18:23). Literally here, “what have you, being asleep?”
Sentences (d-e) are volitive – i.e. two asyndetic imperatives (cf. 3:2) –while (f-g) are non-volitive, indicative constructions – i.e. respectively, x-yiqtol, and welö∑ + yiqtol, which is the negative counterpart of weqatal, indi-cating consequence: “so that we will not perish.”
1:7 Different volitive verb forms are found here: an imperative (b), andtwo indirect jussive yiqtol forms, or weyiqtol (c-d), coordinate to the impera-tive.10
In (e) beåellemî (cf. 1:12f)11 is the syntactic predicate and härä„â hazzö∑t
länû is the syntactic subject. Note that the syntactic subject is a complete non-
7. Literally, “the ship thought to be broken”; on this peculiar expression, consult U. Simon,Jona. Ein jüdischer Kommentar, Stuttgart 1994, 81-82.
8. As noted earlier, the waw-x-qatal could also be connected to the following wayyiqtol as isdone, among others, by the RSV: “But Jonah had gone down into the inner part of the ship.”The alternative possibility is preferable for the reason expressed above (see comment on 1:3b-4). Thus, Jonah’s behavior is related in contrast with the drastic measures taken by the sailorsto save their lives.
9. Scholars affirm that this construction, also present in Ezek. 18:2 (but here we find ∑attemmöåelîm, i.e. a non-verbal sentence with circumstantial function, not a simple participle; literally,“What do you have while you repeat the proverb…”) and Qoh. 6:8, and later in Mishnaic He-brew, is characteristic of post-exilic language, in contradistinction from the old kî + yiqtol con-struction; see K. Almbladh, Studies in the Book of Jonah, Uppsala 1986, 20; Simon, Jona, 65.
10. In the ‘imperative + weyiqtol’ tense shift, the weyiqtol is either coordinate or subordinateto the imperative. This decision has to be taken on semantic grounds. Generally speaking, verbforms of the same person are coordinate as is the case in 1:7b-d (even though the imperativelekû is idiomatically in the second person plural), while when the verb forms are of differentpersons, the weyiqtol is normally dependent on the preceding imperative. See discussion inSyntax § 61. In case it is subordinate, weyiqtol indicates the purpose of the command, i.e. ‘dothis in order that…’ Contradistinctively, in the tense shift ‘imperative → weqatal’ does notindicate the purpose but a mere consequence of the command. Consult “Basic Facts andTheory of the Biblical Hebrew Verb System in Prose” (to be published by E.J. Brill in theBiblical Interpretation Series in late 1997) § 6.
11. The same as ba∑Äåer lemî (1:8c).
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 21
verbal clause, with härä„â hazzö∑t as grammatical subject, and länû as gram-matical predicate. The non-verbal clause is embedded in a superordinateinterrogative sentence.12 Also note that this sentence is an indirect “x-question”; syntactically, it is a cleft sentence.13
1:8-9 The five interrogative sentences (c-g) show the same pattern ‘syn-tactic predicate - subject’ as 1:7e as follows:
2) SUBJECT 1) PREDICATE
(c) …wnDl taøΩzAh hDo∂rDh _yImVl rRvSaA;b
14
(d) ÔKV;tVkaAlV;m _hAm
(e) awøbD;t NyAaEm…w
15
(f) ÔKRx√rAa hDm
(g) hD;tDa MAo h‰ΩzIm_yEa◊w
Note that the slot of the predicate is filled by interrogative pronouns(c-d; f), adverb (e) and adjective (g), while the slot of the syntactical predi-cate by different constructions. They are as follows: non-verbal clause (c),noun (d; f), finite verb (e), and pronoun (g). For the principle of paradig-matic substitution, both the noun and the finite verb form in the secondplace of the sentence (waw-x-yiqtol in c) – besides the non-verbal clause –play the same function of the syntactic subject. This proves that the sen-tence type ‘x - finite verb’ is functionally (i.e. syntactically) nominal al-though it grammatically contains a finite verb. In other words, the finiteverb is (syntactically, not grammatically) nominalised as a consequence ofoccupying the second position in the sentence, and the construction isclefted (see 1:7e above).
Jonah’s replies in 1:9 follows the same pattern ‘syntactic predicate - sub-ject’ of the questions of 1:8:
12. This is explained in my papers, “Marked Syntactical Structures in Biblical Greek in Com-parison with Biblical Hebrew,” LA 43 (1993) 9-69, § 3; and “Basic Facts” § 8.
13. These interrogative sentences show the pattern ‘syntactic predicate - subject’ because theyare ‘x-questions.’ Indeed this particular interrogative sentence (as opposed to general inter-rogative sentence with the verb in the first place, usually introduced by hÄ-) is a cleft construc-tion per se. On the general topic, consult T. Givón, Syntax. A Functional-TypologicalIntroduction, vol. II, Amsterdam - Philadelphia 1990, § 18.4.2.4. More specifically, see“Marked Syntactical Structures” §§ 1-3; 5, where I have listed four types of the cleft sentencein Biblical Hebrew, among which the ‘x-questions,’ and the corresponding structures in Bibli-cal Greek.
A. NICCACCI22
2) SUBJECT 1) PREDICATE
(b) yIkOnDa yîrVbIo
(c) aérÎy ynSa MyAmDÚvAh yEhølTa hÎwh◊y_tRa◊w
A distant reply to the question of 1:8c in 1:12e also follows the pattern‘syntactic predicate - subject’:
2) SUBJECT 1) PREDICATE
MRkyElSo h‰ΩzAh lwødÎ…gAh rAoA;sAh yI;lRvVb
These replies show, in the slot of the predicate, a universal term („ibrî,1:9b) and two complements with particular terms: “the Lord” (1:9c) and “I”(1:12e). In the first case, the non-verbal sentence is predicative and plain: “Iam a Hebrew”;16 in the other two cases, the sentence is marked and clefted:“it is the Lord… that I fear”; “it is because of me that this great tempest hascome upon you.”17
1:10 The interrogative sentence (c) is again a ‘x-question’ with the samepattern as those in 1:8:
2) SUBJECT 1) PREDICATE
(c) DtyIcDo taøΩz _hAm
14. Ba∑Äåer le- is equivalent to beåelle- (1:7e; 1:12f).
15. This use of yiqtol after më∑ayin “from where?” may be idiomatic; it does not represent anestablished function of that verb form in direct speech. In other occurrences of the same phrase,yiqtol prevails (Jos. 9:8; Judg. 17:9; 19:17; 2Kgs. 20:14; Job 1:7), but qatal (Gen. 42:7) and asimple pronoun (Gen. 42:7; Jos. 2:4) are also attested. Similarly, ∑ê-mizzeh “from which…?”is followed by yiqtol (2Sam. 1:3; Job 2:2), qatal (Gen. 16:8) and a pronoun (1Sam. 25:11;30:13; 2Sam. 1:13; 2Sam. 15:2). Note that in these cases, too, the finite verb is used with anominal function.
16. LXX: “ I am a servant of the Lord.”
17. See my exposition in “Simple Nominal Clause (SNC) or Verbless Clause in Biblical He-brew Prose,” ZAH 6 (1993) 216-227, esp. 216-219. The criterion of ‘universal’ versus ‘par-ticular’ term is basic in non-verbal clauses just as the criterion of the position of the finite verbis basic in sentences with finite verb forms. The situation in both types of sentence is parallel.In other words, when the syntactic predicate is what is actually expected to be (i.e. a ‘universalterm’ in the first type of sentence, and the finite verb in the second) the sentence is predicativeand plain; it conveys an information in general terms. When, on the contrary, the syntacticpredicate is what is not expected to be (i.e. a ‘particular term’ in the first type, and a non-ver-bal element in the second) the sentence is marked or clefted; it provides details of the informa-tion: who, what, how, when, etc. depending on the grammatical quality of the syntacticalpredicate. See my recent discussion in “Basic Facts” § 8.
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 23
Literally (c), “What is the-fact-that-you-have-done-this?”; i.e. “Why haveyou done this?” In other words, the syntactical subject is a complete clause,with grammatical object and predicate, embedded in the superordinate in-terrogative sentence (see 1:7e above).
Syntactically, sentences (d-f) convey background information to the pre-ceding wayyiqtol (a). Semantically, they are not coordinate, but (e) and (f) aresubordinate to (d); more precisely, clause (e) is an object clause of verb yäda„
of (d), and (f) is a causal clause related to (d), which is itself a causal clauserelated to (b). Further, (e) is a cleft sentence because of its word order (i.e. theprepositional phrase millipnê yhwh precedes the non-verbal sentence hû∑
börëa˙); literally, “it was from the presence of the Lord that he was fleeing.”
1:11-12 The interrogative sentence (1:11b) is similar to 1:10c. The dif-ference is that the finite verb has no grammatical object and therefore theinterrogative pronoun coincides with it; literally, “What is the-fact-that-we-shall-do-(it)-to-you?”
The weyiqtol form (c) is an indirect jussive form with the function of a clauseof purpose: “that the sea may quiet down for us.” The same in 1:12: “Throw meinto the sea, that the sea may quiet down for you” (see note 10 above).
1:14 Sentences (d-e) are coordinate negative constructions; their positivecounterpart would be an imperative or a jussive yiqtol.
Sentences (g-h) constitute a “double sentence” with protasis (g) and apo-dosis (h).18 The preceding personal pronoun in (f) is a casus pendens and as suchit constitutes a sentence by itself; literally, “because as for you, o Lord…”19
2:11 Wayyö∑mer is not followed by direct speech; hence, it has the mean-ing of “spoke” as in Gen. 4:8 and Exod. 19:25.20
3:3 As in other cases (1:4c; 1:5d), the waw-x-qatal clause (c) conveysbackground information connected to the preceding wayyiqtol.
3:4 In the light of Gen 40:13, 19, the direct speech (d-e) constitutes a“double sentence”; the phrase ∑arbä„îm yôm is casus pendens and functions
18. On the typology of the “double sentence,” also called “the two-element syntactic construc-tion,” see Syntax, Ch. 8.
19. On the syntactic status of the casus pendens, consult Syntax §§ 119-120; Lettura § 4.4;“Finite Verb,” 436-438.
20. See “Narrative Syntax of Exodus 19-24” § 2.1.
A. NICCACCI24
as the protasis, and „ôd is used as an adverbial modifier, while waw + non-verbal clause is the apodosis; literally, “As for yet forty days (protasis),Nineveh is going to be overthrown! (apodosis).”21
3:7-8 Noun phrase (3:7c) is a casus pendens22 functioning as the protasisas usual: “As for man or beast, herd or flock.” The apodosis is represented bya series of volitive verb forms both negative ∑al + yiqtol (3:7d-e) and positiveweyiqtol (3:8a-c),23 while the waw-x-∑al + yiqtol construction expresses back-ground information to the preceding main-line ∑al + yiqtol.24
In 3:8a the subject of weyitkassû is specified with hä∑ädän wehabbehëmâ.However, in a series of verb forms having the same subject, both before andafter 3:8a, the specification is not needed; in fact, it is not the subject but anapposition to it.25
21. Compare Gen 40:13, 16: be„ôd åelöået yämîm (protasis) yi¬¬ä∑ par„öh ∑et-rö∑åekä(apodosis) “within three days, Pharaoh will lift up your head.” In the light of this text, ∑arbä„îmyôm in our passage is not the subject of the ‘quasi-verb’ „ôd (see below) but it is rather usedadverbially (“adverbial accusative,” Joüon-Muraoka, II, § 126), i.e. it is equivalent to theprepositional phrase be„ôd åelöået yämîm of Gen. 40:13, 16. The evidence shows that „ôd isused in two different ways. First, as a ‘quasi-verb,’ i.e. it constitutes a sentence with the at-tached suffix pronoun or with the following noun (e.g. Gen. 18:22; 29:9; 43:27, 28; 44:14;45:26, 28, etc.); second, and more frequently, it is used adverbially, i.e. it modifies a completesentence – either a sentence containing a finite verb (e.g. Gen. 4:25; 8:10, 12, etc.), or a non-verbal sentence (e.g. Gen. 19:12; 29:7; 31:14; 43:6, 7; 45:3; 48:7), or even a prepositionalphrase, or a noun used as adverbial accusative, functioning as the protasis (e.g. Gen 40:13, 19quoted above, and 7:4).
22. Since no clear criteria are present here to identify the casus pendens (such criteria are indi-cated in Syntax §§ 124-125), one could also interpret the construction as a x- (negated jussive)yiqtol where ‘x’ is the subject (3:7c). However, in cases where the subject is multiple, it isusually split in Biblical Hebrew, i.e. the first subject is named together with its verb form, thenan (unnecessary) independent personal pronoun agreeing with the first subject is used in orderto attach to it the other subject(s) in apposition. E.g., wayya„al ∑abräm mimmißrayim hû∑
we∑iåtô wekol-∑Äåer-lô welô† „immô hannegbâ “So Abram went up from Egypt, he and his wife,and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the Negeb” (Gen. 13:1). The opposite case, where amultiple subject is not split, is rare, e.g. Gen. 22:5; Num. 16:16; 18:7; Jos. 8:5 (in these ex-amples two subjects are named).
23. LXX read wayyiqtol instead of weyiqtol in 3:8a-c and have le÷gonteß “saying” at the endof the verse to introduce the direct speech of 3:9.
24. A string of volitive forms here begins with first-place (or sometimes with second-placeyiqtol, i.e. yiqtol or x-yiqtol, without any difference), goes on with weyiqtol, which is the main-line continuation form, not with a x-yiqtol; a x-yiqtol in the course of direct speech is a sec-ondary-line construction. See Syntax §§ 61-63. Syntactically, it is subordinate, not coordinate,to weyiqtol. Semantically, there may be different ways of rendering the syntactic subordina-tion, e.g. in this case “as well as” suits the context.
25. Thus, we have in 3:8a the kind of construction illustrated in note 22. This constructionparallels the one found in 3:7c-d with a difference: the latter is a “left dislocation” while the
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 25
3:9 The yiqtol following mî yôdëa„ (a) is very likely an asyndetic objectclause (cf. 2Sam. 12:22;26 Joel 2:14).27 Syntactically, mî is the predicate,yôdëa„ yäåûb is the subject; grammatically, the subject is a noun phrase. Itranslate: “Who is one who knows (that / if) he will return.” In other similarpassages mî yôdëa„ governs a noun object (Psa. 90:11; Prov. 24:22; Qoh. 8:1,7) or an indirect interrogative expression (Qoh. 2:19; 6:12; Esth. 4:14). Thefollowing weqatals (b-c) are coordinated continuation forms while the welö∑
+ yiqtol (d) is their negative counterpart. Further, the expression “he will re-turn and he will repent, God” is idiomatic for “he will again repent.”28
4:2 The non-verbal sentence (g) is “presentative”; it shows the pattern‘grammatical subject (∑attâ) - predicate’ (i.e. the series of divine titles).29
4:4 In sentence (b), the phrase hahê†ëb – composed of the interrogativeparticle hÄ- and an infinitive absolute used adverbially – is the predicate, and˙ärâ lekä is the subject (the finite verb constitutes a subject clause); literally:“Is it rightly that you have become angry?” (cf. 4:9). This is a ‘x-question’sentence where the predicate is an adverb (see 1:7e; 1:8-9 above).
4:5 The yiqtol (f) looks forward to the conclusion of the story (“prospec-tive yiqtol”), a characteristic function of yiqtol in narrative.30
4:8 Wayehî is followed by a double sentence composed of a kaph + in-finitive phrase functioning as the protasis (a), and a wayyiqtol sentence (b)
former is a “right dislocation” (for this terminology, see Givón, Syntax, II, §§ 17.3.5-17.3.6).Note that the Biblical Hebrew sentence, both with and without a finite verb, is basically a two-slots structure (i.e. syntactical predicate - subject); see “Simple Nominal Clause (SNC),” esp.pp. 223-227; and “Marked Syntactical Structures” § 8. Just as the casus pendens (see 1:14g-habove), it is likely that the apposition also constitutes a sentence by itself.
26. Ketiv ye˙onnënî, Qere we˙annanî, a reading that is difficult to understand.
27. On mî + yiqtol expressing a wish, consult S.R. Driver, A Treatise on the Use of the Tensesin Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions, 3 ed., Oxford 1892, p. 134 (“mî yôdëa„ =perhaps”).
28. See, e.g. BDB s.v. åûb (8), p. 998. Some scholars, e.g. Simon, Jona, 118, interpret yäåûb of3:9a in its full meaning of “return”; however, the presence of weåäb in 3:9c makes the mean-ing “again” in 3:9a probable. Further, the fact that in 3:9a-b the subject is specified after thesecond verb, hä∑≤löhîm is in apposition, or “right dislocation” (see note 25 above).
29. On the “presentative” sentence see “Simple Nominal Clause (SNC),” pp. 220-223; and“Marked Syntactical Structures” § 7.3.
30. See Syntax § 88.
A. NICCACCI26
functioning as apodosis. From the point of view of grammar, the double sen-tence is complete without wayehî; however, without it the double sentencewould interrupt the main line of narrative because it is a nominal construc-tion. The function of wayehî is precisely to avoid this interruption.31
4:9 God’s question (b) and Jonah’s reply (d) follow the same pattern:‘syntactic predicate (hê†ëb) - subject (˙ärâ ∑appô)’ (cf. 4:4b).
4:10-11 The x-qatal sentence (4:10b) at the beginning of direct speech isa main-line construction as if the verb was in the first place. On the contrary,on the x-qatal clauses in the course of direct speech (4:10e-f) are secondary-line constructions. Semantically, they are “emphatic” in the sense that a spe-cial stress falls in the nominal ‘x’ phrases preposed to the finite verbs;literally: “it is as a son of a night that it came into being, and it is as a son ofa night that it perished.”32
The shift from the axis of the past in 4:10b to that of the future happens in4:11a with an indicative waw-x-yiqtol, a main-line construction in directspeech.33
3. The Poetic Section
2:3
(a) “I called out of my distress, yIl h∂rD…xIm yIta∂r∂q
(b) to the Lord and he answered me; ynnSoÅ¥yÅw hÎwh◊y_lRa
31. Being a wayyiqtol form, wayehî carries on the main line of narrative. Thus, it enhances the“textuality” of the text. This connective function makes of wayehî a major factor ofmacrosyntactic connections inside the text. The weqatal wehäyâ fulfills a comparable functionin discourse. Consult Syntax §§ 28-36; Lettura § 4.3; “Sullo stato sintattico del verbo häyâ,”LA 40 (1990) 9-23, esp. § 6.
32. On qatal (or x-qatal) at the beginning of an oral report, se Syntax §§ 22-23. In the course ofdirect speech, x-qatal is a secondary-line verb form in direct speech as in historical narrative;see “narrative discourse” in Syntax §§ 74-77.
33. Indicative yiqtol is a second-place verb form as opposed to jussive yiqtol, which is a first-place verb form but can also take the second place without any difference. This applies to thebeginning of direct speech (4:11a is not found right at the beginning of the direct speech but is“initial” in the sense that it introduces the axis of the future after that of the past). In the courseof direct speech, an x-yiqtol construction, both indicative and jussive, marks a secondary lineof communication because the continuation main-line forms are weqatal for the indicative andweyiqtol or the jussive. See Syntax §§ 61-65; “A Neglected Point of Hebrew Syntax: Yiqtoland Position in the Sentence,” LA 37 (1987) 7-19, esp. § 1.
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 27
(c) out of the belly of Sheol I cried, yI;tVoÅ…wIv lwøaVv NRfR;bIm
(d) and you heard my voice. yIlwøq D;tVoAmDv
2:4
(a) You cast me into the deep, hDl…wxVm ynEkyIlVvA;tÅw
(b) into the heart of the seas,34MyI;mÅy bAbVlI;b
(c) while the flood was round about me;35yˆnEbVbOs◊y rDhÎn◊w
(d) all your waves and your billows ÔKyR;lÅg◊w ÔKy®rD;bVvIm_lD;k
(e) passed over me. …wrDbDo yAlDo
2:5
(a) And I said, yI;t√rAmDa yˆnSaÅw
(b) ‘I am cast out from your presence; ÔKy‰nyEo d‰g‰…nIm yI;tVvår◊gˆn
(c) still I will gaze again ÔfyI;bAhVl PyIswøa JKAa
(d) upon your holy temple.’36KRv√d∂q lAkyEh_lRa
34. In the parallel pair meßûlâ // bilbab yammîm either the preposition of the second term alsogoverns the first (the so-called “double-duty preposition,” see M. Dahood, Psalms I: 1-50,Garden City 1966, 201-202 (on Psa. 33:7), or the first term is an adverbial accusative (see note21 above).
35. Compare F.M. Cross, “Studies in the Structure of Hebrew Verse: The Prosody of the Psalmof Jonah,” in: H.B. Huffmon - F.A. Spina - A.R.W. Green (ed.), The Quest for the Kingdom ofGod. Studies in Honor of George E. Mendenhall, Winona Lake 1983, 159-167. According tohis (and D.N. Freedman’s) custom, Cross prunes away conjunctions and other particles con-sidered to be superfluous in poetry. Specifically, in v. 4 he leaves out the “conjunctive waw”in wattaålîkënî (although it is the so-called “inversive waw”), but he keeps it in watta„al in v.7c. He comments: “The prefix conjugation (without waw), used in the past narrative sense, isfound in v. 4 (ysbbny parallel to „brw), and v. 6 (ysbbny parallel to ∑ppwny)” (p. 161). He alsoclaims that vv. 3-7, in contrast to vv. 8-10, are old because they reflect ancient Canaanite styleand show few “prosaic” features. However, his criteria seem to be rather speculative (see Syn-tax, 195). Further, a rather peculiar study on the poetics of the whole Book of Jonah is to bementioned: D.L. Christensen, “Narrative Poetics and the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah,”in: E.R. Follis (ed.), Directions in Biblical Poetry, Sheffield 1987, 29-49. According toChristensen, the Book of Jonah is “a narrative poem” and the psalm of Jonah is “an integralpart of the structural design of the book of Jonah as a whole and not a secondary insertion, asis often claimed” (p. 45).
36. H.-P. Mathys, Dichter und Beter. Theologen aus spätalttestamentlicher Zeit, Göttingen1994, 218, reflects the common view when he translates: “Wie werde ich je wieder schauendeinen heiligen Tempel?” One finds support for this reading of ∑ak as ∑êk in Theodotion, whohas pw◊ß “how?” However, the MT is understandable as a firm promise by Jonah of seekingthe Lord in his temple (similar to David’s desire in Psa. 63:3 as analysed by M. Dahood,
A. NICCACCI28
2:6
(a) The waters surrounded me up to my neck,37vRp‰n_dAo MˆyAm yˆn…wpDpSa
(b) while the deep was round about me, yˆnEbVbOs◊y MwøhV;t
(c) weeds38 were wrapped about my head. yIvaørVl v…wbDj P…ws
2:7
(a) To the roots of the mountains39 I went down, yI;t√dårÎy MyîrDh yEbVxIqVl
(b) while the Netherworld – its bars were behind me for ever;40MDlwøoVl yîdSoAb DhyRjîrV;b X®rDaDh
(c) yet you brought up my life from the Pit, yA¥yAj tAjAÚvIm lAoA;tÅw
(d) o Lord my God. yDhølTa hÎwh◊y
2:8
(a) When my soul fainted within me, yIvVpÅn yAlDo PEÚfAoVtIhV;b
Psalms II: 51-100, Garden City 1968, 65; 67). A similar opinion has been expressed by A.S.van der Woude, “Bemerkungen zu einigen umstrittenen Stellen im Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in:A. Caquot - M. Delcor (ed.), Mélanges bibliques et orientaux en l’honneur de M. HenriCazelles, Kevelaer - Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981, 483-499, p. 490. As van der Woude points out,the motives of distress (“Not”) and deliverance (“Rettung”) are not treated one after the otherbut jointly in the psalm of Jonah; see vv. 4-5a.5b; 6-7a-b.7c; 8a.8b-d. Also compare the trans-lation by Simon, Jona: “aber ich werde weiter schauen zur Halle deines Heiligtums” (p. 91).Simon refers to Psa. 31:23 for a similar opposition between human despair and divine provi-dence (p. 100), and quotes Psa. 27:4 as a parallel for the desire of seeing the temple (p. 101).
37. On nepeå “throat, neck, gullet,” see M. Dahood, Psalms III: 101-150, Garden City 1970,56 (on Psa. 105:18).
38. The Hebrew sûp (from the ancient Egyptian ®wfy = “papyrus reed”) is reminiscent of thestory of Moses in Exod. 2:3; consult my paper, “Sullo sfondo egiziano di Esodo 1-15,” LA 36(1986) 7-43, pp. 12-14. Many authors discover in the Book of Jonah subtle allusions to manypassages of the Bible and try to evaluate their import; see, among others, J. Magonet, Formand Meaning. Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah, 2 ed., Sheffield 1983. Onthe different ways of translating sûp in the ancient versions, consult Almbladh, Studies, 28.
39. Consult Simon, Jona, 101-102, who quotes the same expression in Sir. 16:23 (or 17, or 19,according to different numbering of the verse) where it is parallel to yswdy tbl “the founda-tions o the world.” He also notes the connection between the roots of the mountains and therealm of death.
40. This passage is normally analysed in a different way; compare e.g. the RSV: “weeds werewrapped about my head at the roots of the mountains. I went down to the land whose barsclosed upon me for ever” (2:5-6). A correct scansion and analysis of these verses is found bySimon, Jona: “die Welt, ihre Riegel auf ewig vor mir” (but ba„Ädî actually means “behindme”!). For ∑ereß “netherworld,” see Dahood, Psalms III, 27-28 (on Psa. 103:11). TheNetherworld was conceived as a city having walls and gates (ibid., 85, on Psa. 107:18). As it iswell known, Israelite and Canaanite mentalities viewed particularly dangerous situations in lifein mythological terms and associated them with the realm of death.
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 29
41. I.e. idols; consult Simon, Jona, 103-104.
42. I.e. God’s mercy on them, though there is considerable discussion among scholars on thisterm; see Magonet, Form, 46; and Simon, Jona, 104.
43. See Syntax, Ch. 10. The different use of the verb forms may be due to the different natureof poetry versus prose, i.e. segmented versus linear communication; see my paper, “AnalysingBiblical Hebrew Poetry” (to be published in JSOT 1997) § 1.
44. Together with E. Cortese, “L’attesa dei poveri non sarà vana. Il Sal 9/10 attualizzato” (tobe published in a miscellany of studies in memory of Prof. F. Vattioni).
(b) I invoked the Lord, yI;t√rDkÎz hÎwh◊y_tRa
(c) and my prayer came to you, yItD;lIpV;t ÔKyRlEa awøbD;tÅw
(d) to your holy temple. ÔKRv√d∂q lAkyEh_lRa
2:9
(a) Those who pay regard to void vanities,41a◊wDv_yElVbAh MyîrV;mAvVm
(b) they will forsake their mercy.42 …wbOzSoÅy MD;dVsAj
2:10
(a) But I with the voice of thanksgiving will sacrifice to you; JKD;l_hDjV;b◊zRa h∂dwø;t lwøqV;b yˆnSaÅw
(b) what I have vowed I will pay. hDmE;lAvSa yI;t√rådÎn rRvSa
(c) Deliverance belongs to the Lord.” hÎwhyAl hDtDo…wv◊y
Poetry still poses a challenge to our understanding of the Biblical Hebrewverb system. As a methodological choice, I decided from the very beginningto leave poetry aside and concentrate on good prose. The reason was that onecould easily suppose that poetry employed the verb forms in a somehow dif-ferent way from prose. This supposition was strengthened by the fact that ifone considered poetry together with prose, one would get nowhere as the tra-ditional approach abundantly showed.43
As in my first attempt to analyse a poetic text (Psa. 9/10), I will try toanalyse Jonah 2:3-10 according to the rules of the prose.44 In principle, one isjustified in abandoning these rules only when demonstrably they do not ap-ply. With the help of the verb forms used, I will try to understand the exactperspective of the text.
In Jonah 2:3-10 (Engl. 2:2-9) the axis of the past is much used. It is indi-cated by the following verb forms: initial qatal (2:3a.d; 2:6a), (waw) x-qatal(2:3c; 2:4d-e; 2:5a; 2:7a) and continuation wayyiqtol (2:3b; 2:4a; 2:7c). Thesethree verb forms are interchangeable because they all indicate the main line
A. NICCACCI30
of communication, except for the fact that wayyiqtol is a continuation form.The reason is that in poetry we do not find a linear development of a story aswe find in prose. Actually, Jonah 2:3 mentions the prophet’s prayer to God,2:4 describes his misfortune, 2:5 the prayer, 2:6-7 the misfortune, and 2:8-10the prayer again. As a consequence, the alternation of first-place and second-place verb forms, e.g. ‘qatal - x’ (‘x’ being any non-verbal element) and ‘x -qatal,’ seems motivated by style or prosody, not by syntax as in prose.
Besides these main-line constructions, we find (waw-) x-yiqtol (2:4c;2:6b) and the non-verbal clause (2:6c; 2:7b), both with the function of ex-pressing a secondary line (i.e. aspect) in the axis of the past. In other words, Itake the x-yiqtol as circumstantial to the main-line constructions instead ofassuming the poetic use of yiqtol for past tense.45 The non-verbal clause isalso circumstantial.
Besides the axis of the past, that of the future is also represented. It isexpressed by yiqtol, indicating the main line of communication. This yiqtolis probably jussive (called “cohortative” in the first person) in 2:5c and 2:10a-b; it is indicative in 2:9b, where it is the apodosis of a double sentence whilethe casus pendens (2:9a) is the protasis. Another case of a double sentence is2:7b, where wehä∑äreß is the protasis and the rest of the line the apodosis. In2:7b the double sentence is related to the axis of the past.
The axis of the present is only represented in the final sentence 2:10c,which is a short proclamation of faith.
The axis of the past poetically describes Jonah’s experience in the sea;that of the future his intention of thanking God and offering sacrifices to him.Already in 2:5c Jonah proclaims his firm intention of seeking God in thetemple, at the same time as he complains of having been cast out from God’spresence (2:5b).
The verb forms and constructions used suggest, therefore, that the per-spective of the psalm is that of after the deliverance. It was composed in or-der to be recited before an assembly during the cult. It can be easily assumedthat the prophet’s actual prayer during the trial had a different perspective.46
From the point of view of poetic style, there is a repeated shift from thethird to the second person in reference to God. The prayer begins in the third
45. For this use of yiqtol in poetry, scholars normally refer to the Northwest Semitic past tenseyaqtul; see exposition in Syntax §§ 171-172. Specifically for the psalm of Jonah, compareCross (see note 35 above).
46. Alternatively, the psalm “was not written for the book but the author quoted a psalm thatwas used in the cult,” as suggested by Almbladh, Studies, 26. On the difficulties felt in theancient versions because of the peculiar perspective of the psalm, see ibid., 29 (on 2:7).
SYNTACTIC ANALYSIS OF JONAH 31
person (2:3b) and abruptly shifts to the second (2:3d); it continues in the sec-ond (2:4-7), then it shifts to the third (2:8b) and again to the second (2:8c)until the last line, where it shifts again to the third person (2:10c).
4. Text-Linguistic Analysis
The Book of Jonah begins and ends in the main line of narrative, i.e. withwayyiqtol. It flows straight with a chain of narrative wayyiqtols from the ini-tial word of God to the prophet down to the final one, with no real break inmain line. In fact, the constructions of the secondary line in historical narra-tive, i.e. all the verb forms and constructions different from wayyiqtol, arerelated to preceding wayyiqtols. The result is, in each case, a syntactic unitmade of ‘foreground’ and ‘background.’ Therefore, the constructions of thesecondary line constitute a pause, not a real break, in the narrative – a pauseto convey a comment, or a circumstantial, qualifying or explanatory informa-tion.
The novella begins right in medias res, with no ‘antecedent information’or setting. Further, the fact that the narrative chain of wayyiqtols is never bro-ken makes the novella a compact story, even a single episode progressingwith maximun speed from beginning to end.
Shifts from foreground to background information are present in placeswhere the writer wishes to show how different pieces of information relateone to another. He indicates, for instance, that as soon as Jonah flees awayfrom God, God pursues him with his wind even in the sea (1:3-4), and thesailors are in disarray while Jonah sleeps in the inner part of the ship (1:5).Background verb forms also serve to disclose to the reader a knowledge ofthe sailors as the reason for saying what they say (1:10). In two places an in-formation about the growing threat of the sea constitutes the background ofthe dramatic exchange between the sailors and Jonah (1:11d, 13c).
Direct speeches are of great theological importance, especially the divinespeech at the end of the novella (4:10-11). On the one side, the readiness ofthe Ninevites to accept the words of an unknown preacher contrasts the re-luctance on the part of Jonah to carry out the order of his own God Yahweh.On the other side, Yahweh’s mercy towards the Ninevites both men and ani-mals stays in strong contrast to Jonah’s harshness (4:2, 10).
The main line of the narrative is strongly governed by God. Decisive stepsin the story are initiated by his command, first resisted (1:1-3), finally ex-ecuted (3:1-3). God is the agent towards Jonah as Jonah is the agent towardsthe Ninevites. Gods providence is underlined by a fourfold repetition of the
A. NICCACCI32
verb form wayeman “he appointed” – a big fish to swallow Jonah (2:1),47 aplant to give shade over him (4:6), a worm to make it wither (4:7), and a eastwind to make Jonah faint under an unrelenting sun (4:8).
The poetic section is kept in the main line of the narrative by its introduc-tion, which is in the wayyiqtol: wayyitpallël… wayyö∑mer (2:2-3).
If, as is usually assumed, the Book of Jonah is a late composition imitat-ing the language of the 8th century prophet whose name it bears, one has tosay that the imitation is superb from the point of view of syntax.48
Thus, Jonah is a well-formed novella with a splendid narrativity.49 It flowswithout break from beginning to end. It stops with an unanswered question,and therefore, so to speak, still in medias res, with no explicit conclusion.50
This is one of the many reasons why its interpretation remains so elusive andfascinating.51
Alviero Niccacci, ofmStudium Biblicum Franciscanum
47. “It is obvious that it [i.e. the fish] was appointed for his [i.e. Jonah’s] benefit to save himfrom drowning” (Almbladh, Studies, 25). Because the news of the “appointment” of the fish isgiven in the wayyiqtol, following the cultic actions of the sailors (1:16-17), one can suggestthat it came as God’s response to them. In other words, the text seems to suggest that Jonah’sdeliverance was a consequence of the sailors’ conversion which, on its turn, was the conse-quence of Jonah’s open proclamation of faith (1:10, 14). Indeed, the Book of Jonah is rich insuch subtle links.
48. On the date of the book, consult, e.g., Almbladh, Studies, 45-46, and Simon, Jona, 67-68.As Almbladh observes, “The language of poetry was traditional, deeply rooted in ancientCanaanite tradition, and thus the old forms and modes of expression were used also in verylate compositions” (ibid., 46).
49. The number of studies from a literary or discourse-analysis perspective is increasing. I onlymention C.L. Collins, “From Literary Analysis to Theological Exposition: The Book ofJonah,” JOTT 7 (1995) 28-44.
50. According to Collins, “From Literary Analysis,” the text appeals to the reader: “You areJonah—what is your answer?” (p. 37). Compare W.B. Croach, “To Question an End, to End aQuestion: Opening the Closure of the Book of Jonah,” JSOT 62 (1994) 101-112.
51. Among the latest attempts to unravel the theological message of the book, see R. Lux,Jona, Prophet zwischen ‘Verweigerung’ und ‘Gehorsam,’ Göttingen 1994, where the impor-tance of the creation theology is rightly stressed; and J. Kraåovec, “Salvation of the RebelliousProphet Jonah and of the Penitent Heathen Sinners,” SEÅ 61 (1996) 53-75.
