244 Ph. Guillaume confirms the interrogative nature of the phrase (9). Other occurrences can be read both ways, although the straight forward affirmation often produces deeper meaning (10). Jon 4,11 belongs to this ambivalent category, but stands out with Job 2,10 as the choice between question and affirmation entails particularly sensitive theological issues (11). “And I should not have pity over Nineveh?” is as different to “as for me, I will not have pity over Nineveh!” than “Shall we receive the good from God and not receive the bad?” differs from “Although we receive the good from God, the evil we shall not receive!” Either reading makes sense, but the choice impacts the understanding of the whole book. Greek grammar is better equipped than its Hebrew counterpart to render hypothetical or dubitative nuances. At least once, the translators of Jonah turned a Hebrew affirmation into a rhetorical question (12). However, in spite of all the revisions of the Greek text, the Septuagint still takes swjaAalw at face value and renders it with the future indicative of feivdomai: “I will not spare….”. Instead of suggesting that JHWH would not destroy Nineveh, the Alexandrian scholars reduced the forty days of impending judgment (Jon 3,4) to three days. This lectio facilior underlines Jonah’s impatience and smoothens the impact of JHWH’s final rejoinder, insisting that Jonah and JHWH agree that Nineveh will be destroyed. Had the Alexandrian scholars understood that JHWH was claiming that he would certainly not destroy Nineveh, the difference of thirty-seven days would be meaningless. That modern Septuagint editions add an interrogative sign “;” at the end of the verse does not counter the argument that the translators of the LXX read Jon 4,11 as JHWH’s unambiguous announcement of Nineveh’s demise. Punctuation is a relatively recent editorial feature of Greek uncials texts. Probably the question mark first occurs in late Byzantine punctuated manuscripts (13). Therefore, until the Byzantine era when a question mark was added at the end of Jonah (14), Greek textual evidence was all in favour of the affirmative reading. To recapitulate, the presence of unmarked questions is well attested and their identification presents no particular problem because their immediate (9) Judg 11,23 is followed by a real rhetorical question and others by an ordinary reply: Exod 8,22 (Eng. 8,26); 1 Sam 16,4; 2 Sam 11,11; 15,20; 20,9; 24,20[Eng 19]; 25,11; Isa 37,11; Jer 25,29; 45,5; 49,12; Ezek 20,31). 2 Kgs 5,26 may be a scribal mistake (see LXX). (10) In Judg 14,17 Samson does end up telling his wife the solution of the riddle, so the previous verse can be read as a promise “but to you I will explain”. 1 Kgs 1,24 can better be rendered as “My Lord the king must have said… since…”. In 2 Kgs 9,11 the assertive reading makes good sense: “you know the man and his babble”. Isa 37,11 can be understood as a prophecy placed in the mouth of the Rabshakeh. Isa 44,19 is clearly defined as idiotic. Job 10,9 refers to Job’s natural end which he does not question. (11) On Job 2,10 see my “Caution: Rhetorical Questions!”, BN 103 (2000) 11-16. Note that NRSV’s rhetorical reading of Lam 3,38 bears directly on Job 2,10. (12) In Jon 2,5b, the emphatic ˚a is rendered with a\ra, turning the Hebrew straight- forward affirmation “I will certainly look again toward your holy temple” into a rhetorical question couched with considerable uncertainty “Shall I again look towards your holy temple?”: L. PERKINS, “The Septuagint of Jonah”, BIOSCS 20 (1987) 48-49. (13) R. Kraft and A. Schenker, personal communications. (14) A prime example of the influence of Gospel theology due to the importance of Jonah as prototype of Christ sleeping in the boat and stilling the storm by his sacrifice.