Глава 3

1–3. Jonah's secondary embassy to Nineveh and 4–10. repentance of the Ninevites. Jon.3:1. And the word of the Lord came to Jonah a second time: John 3:2. Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and preach in it what I have commanded you. Jonah's second embassy to Nineveh is spoken of in the same words as the first (Jonah 1:1–2); one might think that this second “word of the Lord to Jonah” was given in the same form as the first (see note to Jonah 1:1). The content of the prophet’s sermon in Nineveh is not indicated again, but a reference is made to the previous command of God about this: “preach in it what I commanded you” (see note to Jonah 1:2). Jon.3:3. And Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord; Nineveh was a great city of God, three days' walk away. “And Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord.” The prophet obeyed the secondary voice of Jehovah because the preceding events (a storm at sea, the lot that fell on him, being swallowed up and erupted by a whale) were signs for him that convinced him of the truth and immutability of the revelation he received. “Nineveh... was a great city of God, three days’ walk away.” Based on the above words, conclusions are often made about the later origin of the book of the prophet Jonah. The past form of the verb used here: “there was a great city” indicates, they say, that at the time of writing the book of Jonah, Nineveh no longer existed, otherwise it would have been spoken of in the present tense, as, for example, in Gen. 10:12. Then the very remark about the size of the city seems to be completely unnecessary for Jonah’s contemporaries, who already knew very well about Nineveh, and is quite appropriate only in the mouth of a writer who lived after its fall. Regarding the past form of the verb, it should be noted that the form used here is the so-called prateritum. It expresses the idea of ​​the actual existence of an object in the described past time without any relation to the present, therefore, this form of the past does not in any way exclude the existence of Nineveh at the time the book was written. It is used only in accordance with the same form of other verbs relating to the same event, so this whole passage can be conveyed as follows: Jonah got up and went to Nineveh and it turned out that it was a great city. Describing the size of Nineveh for Jonah’s contemporaries, most of whom had not seen this city, and some perhaps did not know it by name, is as natural as describing various large cities in our time. To conclude on this basis that Nineveh could not have existed at the time of its description can only be done from a preconceived view. We will find a direct indication that the book of Jonah was written before the destruction of Nineveh in the book of Tobit (Tob. 14:8), where Tobit persuades his son Tobias to leave Nineveh, “for Nineveh will be destroyed, as the prophet Jonah said.” Obviously, the Israeli captives in Assyria thought that Jonah's prophecy about the destruction of Nineveh (Jonah 3:4) was only delayed due to the repentance of the city and at one time, seeing the extreme corruption of the Assyrians, they were waiting for its fulfillment. In any case, they were familiar with the book of the prophet Jonah long before the fall of Nineveh. The remark about the size of Nineveh is supplemented with the words “with God.” By this, the writer wanted to determine the position of Nineveh in relation to God, to say that it was great in the eyes of God, before God, which means that it had some kind of moral power and greatness. The purpose of such a remark could be to justify in advance, in the eyes of Israeli readers, the cancellation by Jehovah of the decree about the destruction of Nineveh described below (Jon. 3:10, 4:11). The size of the city of Nineveh in the 3rd century. is defined by the words: “three days’ journey.” The day of travel, i.e., the distance that can be covered in one day, among the ancient peoples, according to Herodotus, was determined at 160–200 stadia, for our length measures - 25–30 versts. Thus, the travel distance of 3 days will be equal to 75–90 versts. To determine the size of cities and localities, their circumference is usually taken, so you need to think that in a given place the words “three days' journey” define the circumference of Nineveh, and not the length. If we take for Nineveh an area with a circumference of about 80 versts and a diameter of less than 30, then these will be the same dimensions that many ancient writers use to measure the size of Nineveh: Strabo, Herodotus, Diodorus Siculus, Xenophon. This means that the data about Nineveh in the book of Jonah are in agreement with the evidence of other historical monuments and do not contain anything incredible, as those who understand the expression “three days’ journey” in the sense of determining the length of Nineveh are trying to imagine. It must also be borne in mind that Nineveh was one of the most ancient cities in the world, that its builders - Nimrod according to the Bible (Deut. 10:10-11) or Nun according to civil history had the intention of building a city outstanding in size and splendor, then that in ancient times cities were not built entirely, but within the city limits in case of a siege they left a significant area under pastures and arable land, so as not to be at all surprised by the size of the city according to the description book Ions. The latest excavations of the ruins of Nineveh on the left bank of the Tigris, near the village of Mozul, once again confirm the testimony of Prince. Ions. John 3:4. And Jonah began to walk around the city, as far as he could go in one day, and preached, saying: forty more days and Nineveh will be destroyed! “And Jonah began to walk around the city, as far as he could go in one day.” The above words do not indicate that Jonah walked in one direction and covered the length of the city, the distance of one day (out of 3) of the journey. The Hebrew expression should be more accurately conveyed: “And Jonah went out through the city” does not mean in the direct direction, but as required by the sermon. The addition, “one day's journey,” therefore, does not stand in connection with the last words of the 3rd Art. (“three days’ walk”) and does not refer to the definition of the size of Nineveh, but was made in order to show the zeal of the prophet in preaching to the Ninevehites. Stopping to preach in squares, marketplaces and streets, he still managed to walk around the city the distance that an ordinary traveler travels in a day. “And he preached, saying, Yet forty days and Nineveh will be destroyed.” In the Greek, and hence in the Slavic translations, instead of “forty” (days) of the original, there are three. Such a reading should be considered erroneous, because it is incredible that all the events of Chapters III and IV - Jonah's preaching to the Ninevites, their repentance, the king's decree on the forms of repentant mourning, Jonah's expectation of the fulfillment of his prophecy and the cancellation of God's decree about the destruction of Nineveh - occurred in a short three-day period. Most likely, the LXX was read in Hebrew and not three, but forty were translated; but later copyists mistakenly replaced the letter “μ,” which meant forty, with the letter γ, which was similar in style, for three. Jonah's preaching in Nineveh certainly cannot be limited to the prediction of her death in forty days. He had to expose the atrocities of the Ninevites (see Jonah 1:2) and at the same time point out the possibility of salvation through repentance. If the prophet had not done the latter, then such hope could not have appeared among the Ninevites (see Jonah 3:8–9), but there would have been only despair. But could the prophet Jonah preach to the Ninevites, and even so comprehensively and successfully, because he, they say, did not know their language, did not know their life, their morals and sins. He was completely foreign to the Ninevites, and they could not understand him. As for the language, we must remember that the Assyrian language belongs to the Semitic language and has great similarities with the Hebrew language, especially this must be said regarding the Galilean dialect, which Jonah spoke. From this it is easy to imagine that Jonah could learn the Assyrian language, and similarly, those educated from the Ninevites could understand Hebrew. We know an example of Jews knowing the Assyrian language, and Assyrians knowing Hebrew in the Bible (see 2 Kings 18.26–28). The knowledge of the life of the Assyrians, necessary for preaching, is easy to assume from the prophet Jonah. Assyria was barely 200 miles from the borders of the Kingdom of Israel, and during the time of Jonah it conducted lively political and trade relations with Israel. The religion of the Assyrians was similar to the religions of the pagan peoples neighboring Israel; the sins of the Assyrians, of course, had a lot in them that was universal to humanity and a lot could be inferred from the appearance of the inhabitants and the city. Therefore, not only Jonah, who was personally in Nineveh, but also the prophets, who had never seen her, knew and vividly depicted her moral state (see Nahum. 1–3; Zeph 2.13–15). John 3:5. And the Ninevites believed God, and declared a fast, and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. John 3:6. This word reached the king of Nineveh, and he rose from his throne, and took off his royal vestments, and put on sackcloth, and sat down on ashes, John 3:7. and ordered to proclaim and say in Nineveh in the name of the king and his nobles: “So that neither people, nor cattle, nor oxen, nor sheep should eat anything, or go to pasture, or drink water, John 3:8. and that people and cattle should be covered with sackcloth and cry mightily to God, and that everyone should turn from his evil way and from the violence of his hands. John 3:9. Who knows, maybe God will have mercy and turn away His burning anger from us, and we will not perish.” John 3:10. And God saw their deeds, that they turned from their evil way, and God regretted the disaster that he said he would bring on them, but did not bring. These verses speak of the repentance of the Ninevites following the preaching of the prophet. Opponents of the historical authenticity of the books of the prophet Jonah consider this entire story incredible. It is incredible that an entire huge city would turn to repentance based on the preaching of one person, still unknown to anyone; the participation of the king in this and the issuance of a special decree is also, they say, incredible; Those external forms in which the repentant feeling of the Ninevites were expressed are also considered incredible. The above objection rests to a large extent on the subjective sense of the probable and the improbable, and in its very essence it is not particularly strong. After all, it very often happens that reality exceeds our ideas about the probable. Meanwhile, in the story of the prophet Jonah there is nothing beyond all probability. Cases of the influence of individuals on the masses of the people, when these masses become infected with a general mood that reaches the point of enthusiasm and obey literally every word of the one who managed to become the head of the movement, are known to everyone (for example. inspiration of the French to fight by Joan of Arc, excitement of the masses to the crusades by Peter the Hermit, etc.). Why could not this phenomenon, so consistent with the psychology of the masses, happen in Nineveh? The impressionability of the eastern people, enhanced in the Ninevites by delicacy and luxury, their high respect for mantika, and belief in all kinds of prophecies - created favorable conditions for them to respond to the inspired preaching and terrible prophecy of a foreign prophet. Jonah's story about his three-day stay in the belly of a whale should have made a particularly strong impression on the Ninevites; in this miracle they saw for themselves a sign of the divine embassy of the prophet and the truth of his preaching, as the gospel indicates: “Jonah was a sign for the Ninevites” (Luke 11.30–31; Matthew 12.40). Perhaps they even compared his story with the widespread myths among them about Ea-Oannes, emerging from the sea to teach people the veneration of the gods and holy life; in this case, the inspired Jonah with his menacing denunciation and authoritative speech could seem to them like Oannes himself (the consonance of the names also spoke for this). Thus, general repentance in Nineveh according to the word of the prophet is a very probable fact. The participation of the king of Nineveh in this case and his issuance of a special decree does not reduce the historical probability of the fact. The King of Nineveh, at the same time, was also the high priest, and his nobles occupied the hierarchical positions following him, so their participation in the religious upsurge that swept the people was inevitable. As for forms of repentance, the involvement of pets in this is puzzling. Ancient people stood closer to the animal world and thought that animals themselves could take part in their lives, so they shared both sadness and joy with them. Herodotus, for example, says that the Persians, after the battle of Plataea, when their commander Masistes fell, cut the hair of all the animals in the camp as a sign of mourning; The same is true in the place we are examining. (7–8). This detail can only be noted as a deeply truthful historical feature. In conclusion, it should be said that the historical authenticity of the repentance of the Ninevites following the preaching of Jonah is certified by the Gospel. The Savior said that “the Ninevites will rise up in judgment with this generation and condemn it; for they repented because of Jonah’s preaching” (Luke 11.32). Obviously, the Savior and his contemporaries considered the repentance of the Ninevites to be a real event, otherwise the reference to them would have no meaning. You might be interested in: