The noun dāgâ, “fish,” is a feminine form, thus contrasting in gender with the way the animal is twice mentioned in v 1 and once in v 11. This condition has led to a number of suggestions and explanations. The most radical, if also the simplest, is to remove the fish’s second occurrence from the text. . . . Another approach to the problem of dāg/dāgâ is to use the gender difference as an obvious focusing device. In a recent analysis, Ackerman thinks the change of gender helps to parallel Jonah’s experiences on ship and in the fish: “The prophet rejoices in the fish’s belly because it provides him with the same false, death-like security he had sought out in the yarketê hassefînâ. And this is why what should have been Jonah’s lament-appeal becomes a song of thanks” ([J. S. Ackerman, “Satire and Symbolism in the Song of Jonah”] 1981: 235-36; the italics are Ackerman’s . . .)
A third approach is followed by some medieval exegetes. They
simply invent two different vehicles for Jonah’s delivery: because the first
fish, masculine in gender, affords Jonah much too comfortable a sanctuary, God
transfers him to a pregnant female fish, her belly chock full of babies!
Bothered by the tight quarters and by the nipping of baby fish, Jonah finally
comes to terms with his situation and utters his touching psalm.
More mundane are the solutions based on grammar. While dāg/dāgâ
does not fit the category of “double gendered” words that Hebrew treats either
as masculine or as feminine, it does belong to a small collection of words of
which the feminine form actually refers to a group—in the case of dāgâ,
to a shoal of fish (as in Gen 1:26, 28; Isa 50:2; Ezek 47:10; see BDB 185).
Hebrew also knows of occasions on which the feminine forms allow exactly the
opposite pattern from which we have just described: the masculine refers to a
group, but the feminine addresses single items (Jonah contains an example of
this phenomenon, in which the feminine [‘onîyâ] means “one ship” while
the masculine [‘onî] has to be translated “a fleet” [1 Kgs 9:26]. On all
of these points, see GKC 394 [§ 122 s, t]). Obviously neither of these
grammatical features is at stake in the case of Jonah’s dāg/dāgâ.
Therefore, some scholars suggests that the feminine ending of dāg (the
consonant -h in texts without vowels) could have mistakenly crept into
an early copy of Jonah. Such a proposal is unlikely, however, for the feminine
form is consistent in both the Hebrew and the earliest Targum manuscripts . . .
In view of this impasse, I would like cautiously to introduce yet another explanation.
In isolated cases, when number is not the main point of a biblical passage,
Hebrew can use the singular rather than the plural form of a word (for
examples, see GKC [Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar] 395 [§ 123.b]). The same condition
occasionally obtains when gender is involved; but the examples cited by
grammars are of masculine supplanting feminine words (for example, “donkey” is
used instead of “jenny”; see GKC 390 [§ 122.f]). I do not think that such
blurring of gender is really a grammatical issue; more likely it is a
vernacular or a narratological one. A storyteller could simply use either
gender for an animal—or both at once—when the sex of the animal was of no
importance to the tale. To illustrate the phenomenon, I give translations of
two Akkadian letters from Mari of about 1765 B.C.E. These letters apparently
treat the same incident; but more importantly they involve lions, animals whose
gender cannot be missed because of their starkly differing physiognomies. The
writer, Yaqqim-Addu, is a governor of a province under the control of the king
of Mari, to whom he writes. He first sends him ARM[T] [Archives royales de Mari]2.106
([C.] Jean [Lettres diverses, transcrites et traduites] 1950: 184).
Then, realizing that he has written with much more finality and confidence than
is warranted, Yaqqim-Addu is forced to follow it with a second letter, ARM[T]
14.1 ([M.] Birot [Lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, gouveneur de Sangarâtum] 1974:
21).
I have italicized the occurrences of either “lion” or “lioness.”
The way the second letter switches the animal’s gender between masculine and
feminine invites obvious comparison with the situation in Jonaa.
|
Previously, I had sent the
following message to my lord, saying, “A lion was caught in a loft at
Bit-Akkaka. My lord should write me whether this lion is to remain in the
loft until my lord’s arrival or whether I should have it conveyed to my lord.”
Now then, since my lord’s letter is slow to come to me and the lion
has been stuck within the loft for five days now—a dog and pig were thrown to
him, but he refused to eat--,I thought, “The lion might yet become
depressed.”
Fearing this, I have forced the lion
into a wooden cage, loaded it on a boat, and had it conveyed to my lord. (ARM
2.106) |
A lioness was caught at night in
a loft at Bit-Akka. The next day, when they notified me, I made my way (there).
In order now to allow this loin, for I am remaining in Bit-Akkaka all
day. I thought to myself, “I want to have it reach my lord in full health.” So
I threw him a [dog and] a pig, and he killed them. I left them (there), but
he would not take them for food.
I have myself written to Bida to bring (me) a wooden cage. While
they were transferring the cage, on the day following, the lion died.
I inspected this lioness: she was old and sickly.
My lord may want to say, “they have willfully killed this lion!”
If anyone had ever touched this lion, (may I be treated) as if I have
transgressed my lord’s ban!
Now then, since this lion
died, I have had his skin flayed, handing it over for tanning. This lion
was old, it died from depression. (ARM 14.1) |
(Jack M. Sasson, Jonah: A New Translation With Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation [The Anchor Yale Bible 24B; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990], 155-57)
