A further pointer to the hand of
a redactor within Jonah ii occurs with the use of the feminine form of the word
fish, dāgâ, in
part of the verse introducing the psalm in ii 2 [ET ii 1], whereas the
masculine form dāg is
found in ii 1 [ET 117] and ii 11 [ET 10]. If both come from the same author it
would be very strange, but if the redactor who added the psalm also added the
words “from the belly of the fish (dāgâ), and he said” immediately before the psalm by way of
introduction, the discrepancy becomes explicable. Accordingly, we may plausibly
suppose that the text originally proceeded directly from ii 2a [ET 1a] to 11 11
[ET 10]. Moreover, starting from one verse further back, ii la [ET i 17a], we
find in wv. 1a.b, ii 2. 11 [ET i 17a.b, ii 1.10] a chiastic structure ABBA
centring on the Lord — Jonah — Jonah — the Lord, thus further supporting the
view that the psalm is a later addition, since it disturbs the sequence. The
original text thus ran, “And the Lord appointed a great fish to swallow up
Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. Then
Jonah prayed to the Lord his God, and the Lord spoke to the fish, and it
vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.” (John Day, “Problems in the
Interpretation of the Book of Jonah,” in In Quest of the Past: Studies on
Israelite Religion, Literature, and Prophetism. Papers Read at the Joint
British-Dutch Old Testament Conference, Held at Elspeet, 1988, ed. A. S.
Van Der Woude [Oudtestamentische Studiën 36; Leiden: Brill, 1990], 41-42)
