JONAH, BOOK OF [III, 936–42] A book of the OT/Hebrew Bible, the fifth in the collection of “Minor Prophets,” recounting the story of Jonah, son of Amittai, who was called by God to prophesy against Nineveh.

JONAH, BOOK OF [III, 936–42] A book of the OT/Hebrew Bible, the fifth in the collection of “Minor Prophets,” recounting the story of Jonah, son of Amittai, who was called by God to prophesy against Nineveh.

The book of Jonah is one of the most familiar and popular in the Bible, yet it contains many puzzles. It is difficult to classify and to date. Its precise message is hard to determine. On the face of it it is a very simple, direct narrative, yet it has produced a wide variety of interpretations. The number of questions it raises can be multiplied: Is it “history” or a “story”? What could it have meant to those who included it in the Biblical canon? Is it a unity or the work of various hands? For example, does Jonah’s long, psalm-like prayer in chapter 2 belong to the original book or was it added later? Is the book in the “right” place in the Bible? It is located among the prophetic writings but is the only one which consists solely of a story about the prophet, and the only “prophecy” it contains consists of five words in the Hebrew. What connection, if any, is there between the Jonah of the Book and the person of the same name in 2 Kgs 14:25?

To these, and many other questions, there are no simple answers and much critical debate. Furthermore any evaluation should also recognize the remarkable power of the book to move, stimulate, and challenge readers of different religious traditions for over two millennia. __________ A. Content and Structure B. Literary Character 1. Poetry and Prose 2. Narrative Devices 3. Genre C. Date and Authorship D. Status of Text and Canonical Position E. Theological Ideas and Motifs __________ A. Content and Structure

The book of Jonah, like any composition or work of art, is a self-contained world, one that works by its own rules and logic. Some rules it shares with the rest of the Bible, others are unique. So it is valuable to gain some understanding of how the book is constructed and what methods the author employs, its “internal” system, before asking “external” questions about the authorship, dating, and place in the Bible.

The book divides neatly into two parallel sections of two chapters each (Lohfink 1961; Landes 1967; Cohn 1969; Magonet 1976). Both sections contain certain “key words” whose recurrence highlights the comparison between them. Chapter 1 begins with God telling Jonah to “arise” and “go” to Nineveh and “call out” against it. When Jonah does indeed “arise” (1:3), as we would expect of an obedient prophet, it is, however, to flee in the opposite direction, to Tarshish, probably S Spain, at the other end of the world. In response, God unleashes the powers of nature to force him back. On the ship is a pagan crew of sailors who try to understand what is happening to them. They identify Jonah as the cause, seek to discover why and recognize the hand of God in the storm. They do their best to save Jonah. His invitation to them to throw him overboard may be seen as an exercise in self-sacrifice on their behalf or a manifestation of his own death wish—though his “correct” answer would have been a request to be taken back to Jaffa. However, by asking them to throw him overboard, rather than merely jumping himself, he brings them into another difficulty. Trapped between doing nothing, and thus drowning, or throwing him overboard, and thus being punished by death for shedding innocent blood, they pray to God who alone can resolve this “double-bind”: “let us not perish” (1:14). They throw Jonah overboard and the storm abates. The sailors offer sacrifices

– 1 –

and make vows to Israel’s God and perhaps, as later Jewish tradition suggests, “convert” thereby to Israel’s faith.

Chapter 2 sees Jonah saved from drowning by a “great fish” and praying to God from its belly. God responds and the fish vomits him out.

Chapter 3 introduces a second call, in almost identical language to that of chapter One, utilizing the same three terms: “arise,” “go” and “call out”. This time Jonah obeys completely, he “arises” and “goes” to Nineveh (3:3) and “calls out” (3:4). His few words to the Ninevites, another pagan community equivalent to the sailors, lead them to repent. Even though Jonah’s decree offers no hope, their king argues that God might change His mind in response to their change in behavior, if they turn aside from their evil way and their violence. His hope is expressed using the same term that the captain and sailors had: “that we perish not” (3:6, 9). God sees how they turn from evil and does not destroy them.

Chapter 4 finds an angry Jonah again praying to God, as in Chapter Two, though here God’s response is given in more detail as a dialogue, expressed in words and actions, ensues between them. God “appoints” three more natural agencies to act upon Jonah. As a result, Jonah’s desire to die because of his “ideological” distress at the forgiving of Nineveh is replaced by a desire to die because of physical distress (compare 4:3–4 and 4:8–9). In a final question God suggests that Jonah felt “pity” for the plant that gave him shade, something never formerly said about Jonah’s actual feelings, surely he could see by analogy why God should have pity on Nineveh with its myriad citizens and animals. The book ends with this question and challenge.

In very general terms chapters 1 and 3 put Jonah in the context of the outer “pagan” world. In both cases the leader of the pagans (the captain, the king) acknowledges that there is a single divine power to whom they turn. It is important to note that two different terms for “God” are used here in quite specific ways. The Heb }eloœh î̂m, usually translated as “God,” is a general term for God (and also divine beings, “other gods,” “angels” and powerful human beings)—it is used here as the supreme divine power. The tetragrammaton, YHWH, is Israel’s name for the supreme God of the world, but with whom Israel has a special covenantal relationship. Whereas the sailors identify the “God” (}eloœh î̂m) who saves them as Israel’s God, and thus make vows to YHWH, the Ninevites make an act of repentance before “God” (}eloœh î̂m) but do not make that step of acknowledging YHWH.

Chapters 2 and 4 contain the inner discussion between Jonah and God represented in the language of prayer, of divine responses in words and actions, and some physical activity directed against Jonah’s body. The two parts of the Book can be represented in the following table:

Table 1: Structure of the Book of Jonah

CHAPTER ONE CHAPTER THREE Call (Arise, Go, Call) (v 2) Call (Arise, Go, Call) (v 2) Jonah arises—flees to Tarshish (v 3) Jonah arises—goes to Nineveh (v 3) God acts—storm (v 4) Jonah acts—prophesies destruction (v 4) Sailors call to their gods (v 5) Ninevites believe, fast, and don sackcloth (v 5) Captain identifies }eloœh î̂m’s

power behind the storm King dons sackcloth, issues (v 6) decree, seeks }eloœh î̂m’s

Sailors seek YHWH’s will (vv 7–13) will (vv 6–8) Sailors pray to YHWH: “let King orders Ninevites to

us not perish” (v 14) pray to }eloœh î̂m: “lest we perish” (v 9)

Storm abates (v 15) God “relents” (v 10)

– 2 –

CHAPTER TWO CHAPTER FOUR Jonah saved Jonah angry Jonah prays Jonah prays God responds God responds

The symmetry of this structure helps us recognize certain elements of the story that we might otherwise overlook. The parallels between the sailors with their captain and the Ninevites with their king indicate that the former are not merely an accidental background against the story of Jonah’s flight. Like the Ninevites they are representatives of the “pagan” world. Like them, they too acknowledge the hand of God in the world, but unlike them they go further in identifying that universal “God” through the name that Israel uses and may indeed come to join Israel. There is therefore a graded universalism within the book. Jonah becomes an instrument for spreading divine knowledge in the world whether consciously obedient or not.

B. Literary Character 1. Poetry and Prose. The book is for the most part a narrative. The “Psalm” in chapter 2

interrupts the story and is a different literary genre. This, among other factors, has led scholars to assume it is an addition. However, there is no a priori reason why a biblical book should not contain a mixture of genres or why the same author should not be capable of varying style to suit the point that is to be made. Moreover, recent work suggests that there is no hard and fast line of division between “poetry” and “prose” within the Bible, and that in the case of “poetry” it is more accurate to speak of “heightened language” within Hebrew texts, most of which have some sort of metrical component (Kugel 1981; Christensen 1987).

2. Narrative Devices. a. Word Repetitions. We have already noted that the repetition of the words associated with Jonah’s “call” provide a method for comparing the two sections of the book, or, in terms of the narrative itself, comparing the consequences of Jonah’s disobedience and ultimate obedience to God’s word. This feature of word repetition is particularly common within the book and allows for “subliminal” messages to be conveyed to the reader. A few examples illustrate the effect:

(1) “Go down.” The Hebrew root yaœrad occurs three times in the first chapter: Jonah “goes down” to Jaffa and “goes down” into the ship (1:3), during the storm he “goes down” into the inner part of the ship (1:5). In the “Psalm” in chapter 2 he says that he “went down” to the bottoms of the mountains (2:7). In addition there is a word play in 1:5, only recognizable in the Hebrew, where the statement that he “fell into a deep sleep” is expressed as wayyeœraœdam in which yaœrad can clearly be heard. There is thus a continuous hint that Jonah’s flight from God is not merely “horizontal” to another part of the world, but actually a “descent,” ultimately into death and the underworld.

(2) “Great.” One of the most frequently repeated words in the book is the term gaœdo®l, meaning “great.” Among those so designated are: Nineveh (1:2; 3:2, 3; 4:11); the storm wind (1:4) and the storm (1:4, 12); the fear of the sailors (1:10, 16); the fish (2:1); the “great ones” of Nineveh (3:5, 7); and Jonah’s anger (4:1). It is also present as a verb meaning to “raise a child,” but here in terms of Jonah not “raising” (growing) the plant (4:10). When one remembers that biblical Hebrew uses adjectives very sparingly and that this repetition is quite obtrusive, some explanation is demanded. It may imply that all the events in the story are “larger than life” and suggest that for the author and initial audience this was perceived as a sort of parable rather than true history. Other explanations are possible, but it is a factor that must be taken into account in any evaluation of the story.

(3) “Appointing.” In the same vein it is very obvious that four “miraculous” events in the book are introduced by the same verbal root maœnaœh, “to count, number, reckon” and here “appoint”: the

– 3 –

great fish (2:1); the “plant” (4:6); the worm (4:7); and the wind (4:8). When we couple this information with the awareness that in each case a different divine name }eloœh î̂m (sometimes with the definite article—ha}eloœh î̂m or YHWH), or a combination of the two, is used, the reader becomes aware that something more is being conveyed.

Again, the precise nuance, is a matter of interpretation, but such features require careful consideration. In this particular case the repetition of the same verbal form with a different subject each time forces the reader to examine the implications of the different usage of divine names on each occasion and suggests that they are not random changes. Whereas in chapters 1 and 3 the use of names is related to the religious perceptions of the “pagan world,” the use in chapters 2 and 4 seems to relate to the “private” internal dialogue between Jonah and God. Thus the fish that saves Jonah is “appointed” by YHWH, whereas the worm and the wind are “appointed” by variants of the name }eloœh î̂m. The plant itself, which has a twofold purpose—expressed as a powerful word-play in the Hebrew “to be a shade” over Jonah (lihyo®t s ΩΩeœl), but also to “rescue him” (le∑has ΩΩs ΩΩ î̂l lo®) from his anger/evil (4:6)—is introduced by both divine names in combination (YHWH-}eloœh î̂m). Though many commentators assume this division of names is arbitrary, given the general precision with which words are used throughout the book, this seems unlikely. A possible explanation is that for these two chapters a different system of interpreting the names is in operation, a prefiguration of the later Rabbinic view that they represented two different divine attributes—}eloœh î̂m suggesting God’s attribute of justice, YHWH, God’s attribute of mercy (Strikowsky 1976). Thus the fish that saves Jonah is a “merciful” act, the worm and wind are part of the process of educating Jonah on his own physical person, and the plant, with its double function, to save and to instruct, serves both purposes. Again, other explanations may be possible, but the precision of the utilization of the names must be taken into account.

(4) “Evil.” One final example is also highly suggestive, particularly because it shows the variety of meanings contained within the individual Heb root. Thus the word raœ{a® refers to the “evil” of the Ninevites that has risen up to God (1:2); the “great evil” of the storm according to the sailors (1:7, 8); and the “evil way” from which the king of Nineveh asks his citizens to turn back (3:8). It is this latter that introduces the most striking sequence utilizing this word. In 3:10, God sees that they turn from their “evil” way, and repents of the “evil” (i.e. punishment) that He had intended to do to them. But this will be experienced by Jonah as “a great evil” (4:1), a phrase usually translated in terms of Jonah being “displeased.” Again, the significance of this is subject to a variety of interpretations, but the “evil” that shifts between the Ninevites, God, and Jonah within the space of two verses, binds the three “characters” of the story together at this crucial moment.

b. Use of Quotations. A feature of the book is the presence of a number of sentences and phrases that resemble passages from elsewhere in the Bible (Feuillet 1947; Fränkel 1967; Ackerman 1981). There is a relationship between 4:2 and Exodus 34:6–7 and other passages which we will explore further in the next section. The “Psalm” contains apparent “quotes” from other Psalms— compare 2:4 with Ps 42:8; Jonah 4:5 and 4:9 with Ps 31:23 and 31:7 respectively (see further below). The argument of the king of Nineveh that God might repent if they “turn from their evil way” reflects Jer 18:7, 8, 11; 26:3, 13, 19. Other statements (including the miraculous interventions and his request to die) reflect the episode of Elijah’s flight from Jezebel into the desert (compare Jonah 4:8 with 1 Kgs 19:4). Jonah’s argument with God (4:2) echoes the language of the children of Israel confronted by the Red Sea on escaping from Egypt (Exod 14:12).

When such parallel passages occur in different parts of the Bible, a number of possible explanations exist: that A quotes B; that B quotes A; that both have a common source; that both were edited in later; that it is purely a coincidence. The relatively large number of such apparent “quotations” and allusions in Jonah is suggestive of a conscious literary ploy by the author, though each case must be argued on its own merits. Nevertheless the contrast between the behavior of

– 4 –

Jonah and that of Elijah, the irony of the king of Nineveh quoting Jeremiah’s theology back at Jonah, as well as Jonah’s use of God’s “attributes,” all complement the narrative and seem to conform with the author’s overall strategy of reversing expectations and conventions.

c. Ironic Inversion. There is one major narrative device that runs throughout the book. We noted above that when God tells Jonah to “arise” and “go,” our conditioning as readers of the Bible is to anticipate an obedient response—but our expectations are subverted when Jonah indeed arises, but to go in the opposite direction. The “hero,” with whom we would expect to identify, acts in an inexcusable way. Conversely, in the same general way, the sailors, and more shockingly the “evil” Ninevites, behave in exemplary fashion: the former trying to save Jonah and displaying piety and integrity; the latter, in the person of the king, taking the mechanical responses of fasting and sackcloth into the higher dimension of turning away from evil and violence. In short the author reverses the conventions of biblical narrative in terms of the encounter between a prophet and the people, and between Israel and the outside world.

(1) Jonah Prays—Chapter 4. This technique of challenging the reader’s natural identification with Jonah recurs in the presentation of Jonah’s various statements throughout the book. The most shocking occurs in his prayer to God in the final chapter. What begins as a standard prayer formula “Please Lord” (4:2) (compare the identical opening words of the captain of the sailors, 1:14) concludes with the standard formula used in petitionary prayer, though somewhat disturbing in its content: “now, Lord, take, please, my soul from me…” (Compare the negative formula of the captain in his petition: “please let us not perish…”). But Jonah’s prayerful opening is interrupted as his anger bursts through (4:2): “Is that not my word when I was back on my own land…” But the reader is further shocked when Jonah quotes against God as an accusation the time-honored formula of God’s “attributes” of mercy and compassion—“I knew you were a God who is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and great in mercy and repenting of evil.” This formula, expressed in its fullest form as God’s response to Moses’ request to learn about God’s glory (Exod 34:6–7), recurs or is echoed in numerous variations (Num 14:18; Ps 103:8–13; Nah 1:3; Joel 2:13–14). Only here is it thrown back at God as an accusation, when God extends this compassion and willingness to forgive Nineveh. Thus Jonah’s prayer, though it utilizes the correct opening and closing terminology, is quite inappropriate.

(2) Jonah Prays—Chapter 2. This device may also be operating in the case of the “Psalm” of chapter 2, which has been identified as a later addition, one of the grounds being its apparent inappropriateness—Jonah giving a psalm of thanksgiving when he is not yet saved (although he has been saved from drowning). Another problem is the absence of any reference in the “Psalm” to his mission or any acknowledgment that he was wrong in fleeing from God. If the author tends to put “inappropriate” prayers into the mouth of Jonah, these absences become quite significant. Jonah is willing to thank God for getting him out of trouble, but not to acknowledge his own responsibility in getting into trouble in the first place. Compare (2:4) “You cast me in …” and the concluding “You brought me up …” (2:7).

Arguments about the “genuineness” of the “Psalm” fall into two general categories: psychological or stylistic. The former include the suggestions given above that it is inappropriate. Since the “Psalm” does suggest that Jonah is capable of some degree of personal repentance and piety, those who wish to paint him as particularly unredeemable argue that it portrays a Jonah different from the rest of the book. However, since their case depends on excluding the “Psalm” from consideration, their argument is circular. (Incidently, that Jonah could compose a “psalm” while in the belly of a fish is no more absurd than the notion that he could survive in one for three days. Attempts to collect cases of sailors who underwent such an experience are unconvincing.)

Among the “stylistic” arguments, the one that the rest of the book is “prose” and this “poetry” is weak, considering the mixture of poetry and prose in other biblical books. The similarity of the “Psalm” to other “thanksgiving psalms,” particularly in its opening and closing sentences, has

– 5 –

reinforced the view that it belonged originally to such a collection and was edited into the book. Since the narrative part invokes the cultic area of sacrifices and vows (1:16), it is not inappropriate to have Jonah compose a typical cultic thanksgiving psalm to express his gratitude. More to the point, Jonah’s “Psalm” differs significantly from others in the Psalter by maintaining the narrative form in the way it organizes the terminology of the “underworld,” so that Jonah’s descent is presented as a geographical sequence.

Furthermore, the “Psalm” contains two instances of a key word or phrase being repeated in a strategic manner. Twice Jonah is “surrounded” (the identical form of the Hebrew verb appearing both times)—by the “streams” (surface currents) in v 4 and by the “deep” in v 6; twice he invokes “Your holy temple”—he looks to it (v 5); his prayer reaches it (v 8). Thus, his physical descent is contrasted with his “spiritual” ascent. This technique of repeating a word or phrase accompanied each time by additional words is also used in the narrative sections of the Book, which would again suggest a common author.

Whereas the opening and closing verses of the “Psalm” and the initial description of the stages of his descent echo similar phrases in other “Psalms” (compare 2:4 with Ps 42:8), during the second phase where he sinks into the very depths, the language is uniquely that of Jonah with no echo elsewhere. Jonah’s descent from conventional experience is matched by a move beyond conventional language. The use of phrases from elsewhere in the Bible, with a strong possibility of deliberate borrowing, echoes the technique apparently used in the narrative parts of the book and again points to a common authorship.

A different approach to the authenticity of the “Psalm” is in terms of the structure of the book as a whole, whereby Jonah’s “descent” is seen as the mirror-image of the “ascent” of the Ninevites in chapter 3 (Magonet 1976: 60–63).

All the above views can be argued in various ways; however, it is also evident that the narrative part of the book does seem to be dependent on the actual content of the “Psalm” itself (Ackerman 1981). The “Psalm” might be there precisely to indicate the inappropriateness of Jonah’s response, in line with other similar inadequacies he has shown. This might explain the comic touch of the fish “vomiting” him out—the word used being particularly strong and implying some disgust. But more specifically, Jonah’s closing words include the promise to make a major sacrifice of thanksgiving to God and pay his vows—the language being virtually identical to that of the sailors. Presumably this can only be done in the Temple. Jonah is thus ready to return to Jerusalem and make the appropriate pious gesture in gratitude for being saved. That is why God has to call him “a second time” at the beginning of chapter 3. This repetition of the call is not merely a stylistic device but, in terms of the story, is a necessary reminder to Jonah that he still has an unfulfilled task to complete.

3. Genre. Until the modern period, the historicity of the book, with a few exceptions, seems to have been taken for granted. Thus the references to the sign of Jonah in the Gospels (Matt 12:38– 41; Luke 11:29–32) have been important for establishing the “truth” of the book for Christians. Likewise the reading of the book on the Jewish Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the most solemn day of the Jewish calendar, has given it considerable educational and moral force within the Jewish tradition.

With the rise of historical criticism came the search for sources, as well as scepticism about the miraculous elements and the lack of evidence in external sources of a massive act of “repentance” in Nineveh. This led, in turn, to conservative attempts to “prove” its historical truth. This concern has waned, at least in scholarly circles, and has been replaced with an attempt to identify the precise “genre” of the book: Is it a parable or legend, a folk tale or didactic story? Is it a “satire,” or is the humor better defined as “irony” (Good 1965; Rauber 1970; Holbert 1981; Ackerman 1981; Golka 1986)? Should one avoid Western categories altogether and turn instead to biblical or rabbinic terminology in trying to define it—is it thus a mashal (a term used of proverbial and parabolic

– 6 –

materials) or a midrash (a category of Rabbinic exegesis that also includes short parables)? Certainly the book is closer in tone to individual tales about Elijah or Elisha, or to the story of Balaam (Numbers 22–24) than to the historical books as a whole or the historical anecdotes within Isaiah and Jeremiah.

To a large extent these attempts reflect a scientific interest in precise definition and categorization of the biblical materials. However, on another level they may nevertheless indicate a concern with preserving the “religious truth” of the book in an age when its “historical truth” can no longer be assumed. The absence of consensus on an appropriate descriptive term reflects the difficulty of such an exercise given the limited amount of biblical and extra-biblical materials with which to compare it and the unique character of the book itself.

C. Date and Authorship Dating the book is problematic because there is virtually no direct information and everything

has to be derived by internal evidence of varying degrees of trustworthiness (see Wolff, Dodekapropheton BK; Allen; Joel, Obadiah … NICOT).

It is notable that there is no time signature to the book itself, listing the kings during whose reign he prophesied, unlike the majority of the prophetic books. Even if these are late editorial additions, they give a starting point for investigation. The absence of a date may be because the author, and subsequently the editors, assumed that the reader would identify the Jonah of the book as the Jonah of 2 Kgs 14:25, in which case no such additional information was needed. However, it must also be noted that the absence of a time may accord with other features of the author’s literary technique. For example, Jonah is not referred to as a prophet throughout the book. This could also be because of assuming the Kings reference, but its effect is to make Jonah an anonymous individual, out of time, struggling with an unacceptable word of God.

Given the lack of direct evidence, scholars have had to work with a variety of factors, linguistic and historical, to determine the date.

The use of words and phrases that reflect Aramaic usage has been seen as pointing to a late date for the book. However, some of the words relating to the sea voyage may be technical maritime terms, possibly Phoenician in origin, which could have been available at any period. Other grammatical constructions may reflect the earlier influence of Aramaic in the N kingdom. In general, the number of such forms is suggestive of a postexilic date, but there is no conclusive evidence.

The statement in 3:3 that Nineveh “was” a great city, suggests that it was no longer in existence at the time of composition, i.e., after 612 B.C.

Earlier assumptions that the “universalism” of the book reflect a protest against the strong particularistic attitudes of the returning exiles cannot be proven, and universalistic views may be found in earlier biblical materials.

We have already noted above the possible presence of “quotations” from other parts of the Bible, both within the narrative and “Psalm” section of the book. If these are accepted as deliberate utilizations of material from elsewhere in the Bible, they are again suggestive of a relatively late date of composition.

In general the nature of the book and the various considerations given above suggest that it is not the work of the 8th century prophet Jonah mentioned in Kings, and that the book is a much later composition, though suggested dates range from the 6th to the 4th century. The same dating problems make it impossible to determine the authorship, once the prophet himself has been excluded.

D. Status of Text and Canonical Position The text of the book has been remarkably well preserved. The most thorough recent study

– 7 –

(Trible 1963: 1–65) indicates the presence and absence of a number of matres lectionis which affect the spelling of the words, but not their meaning. The genuineness of a couple of words is questioned because of their unusual form or on metrical grounds, but none of these have major consequences. Similarly the ancient versions raise no significant questions about the MT.

No record is preserved of any dispute about its place in the canon among the Twelve “Minor Prophets,” despite its major difference in style to the others. It may owe its place there to the identification of Jonah with the prophet in 2 Kings 14. This would account for its location in the first half of the collection, which is probably based upon the chronological view held at the time of compilation (Wolff, Dodekapropheton BK, 53).

E. Theological Issues and Motifs The use of a narrative form affects the way the book is perceived and received. The onus is

placed very firmly upon the reader to interpret the events described. For example, no reason is given in the opening chapter for Jonah’s flight from God. This leaves the reader with the responsibility of “gap-filling” about this crucial question. Given the role of Nineveh in Israelite history (the capital of the Assyrian Empire that destroyed the N Kingdom), the reader may well sympathize with an Israelite prophet who refused to go there to preach. But this brings the reader, like Jonah himself, into direct conflict with God’s express command, so that the reader is forced to identify with, and even share, the tension experienced by the “hero.” Even the explanation offered by Jonah in chapter 4 does not resolve the initial question. Jonah quotes good religious traditions about God being “compassionate and merciful” (see discussion above) but it is still not clear to what he is actually objecting. This leads inevitably to a whole range of possible interpretations, all of which have surfaced in classical religious traditions and modern scholarship (Bickerman 1967; Allen, Joel, Obadiah … NICOT, 188– 191). For example, Jonah was jealous that God’s special love for Israel was here being extended to those he considered as Israel’s enemies—the particularistic/universalistic conflict; Jonah was committed to a God of strict justice and was scandalized by God’s compassion for those he considered to be wicked and due for severe punishment—the justice/mercy conflict. These and other interpretations may be argued out and different weight may be given to the various viewpoints depending on the reader’s own concerns or interests.

The significance of this is not that one or the other view is right or wrong, but rather that it is in the nature of “narrative” to be suggestive and allusive in this way rather than to be assertive or dogmatic. The exercise of exploring the possible reasons is as much a part of the “message” of the book as the story itself because it, too, demands that the reader continually reassess his or her view of events and motivations. The reader, like Jonah, is forced to re-evaluate an understanding of the world and of God’s will. It is therefore erroneous to focus solely on the character of Jonah and condemn him as a “narrow, chauvinistic, hater of Gentiles” as some extreme interpretations with anti-Jewish overtones have suggested (Golka 1986); it is equally erroneous to identify totally with the author as a sublime, universalistic, almost “pre-Christian Christian” as have others for whom the Hebrew Bible is read in the light of the Christian canon. The narrator who “knows” what is going on, the characters who appear in the story, and the reader who encounters the book, all play their part in a process of interpretation. Thus the nature of the book and the awareness of these implications is vital for an attempt to understand and evaluate it.

We began by listing a series of questions raised by the book and it is worth remembering that it concludes with a question. “If you (Jonah) can have pity … should not I (God) have pity…” No answer is offered by the text but various exegetical and liturgical traditions have tended to assume that Jonah said “yes,” and was suitably repentant. This need not be the case, and given the frequency with which the author breaks conventions, it is probably best to leave the matter open— or, as the whole thrust of the narrative has been, to leave it to the reader to respond to the

– 8 –

challenge posed equally to Jonah and the reader. For that, after all, is the culminating effect of the narrator’s strategy of demanding the reader’s engagement. The book is subversive in its inversion of conventions and challenging of stereotypes and prejudices. Thus, despite its unconventional narrative form, its place among the prophetic books is ultimately appropriate. It clearly addresses the issue of the relationship of Israel to the outside world, represented as two major tendencies. Yet the polemic does not overwhelm its artistic values. Most strikingly a relatively small vocabulary (for example, the repetition of two verbs alone creates the vivid effect of the storm) is used to considerable effect and creates multiple dimensions of meaning. The significant echoes of other biblical events or narratives provide reference points that lead to startling new understandings, both of the event cited and of the character of Jonah himself. In this, at least, the Book seems to stand within the tradition of interpretation through parable that was to become Rabbinic midrash.

Bibliography Ackerman, J. S. 1981. Satire and Symbolism in the Song of Jonah. Pp. 213–46 in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith, ed. B. Halpern and J. D. Levenson. Winona Lake, IN. Bickerman, E. J. 1967. Four Strange Books of the Bible. New York. Christensen, D. L. 1987. Narrative Poetics and the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah. Pp. 29–48 in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry, ed. E. R. Follis. JSOTSup 40. Sheffield. Cohn, G. H. 1969. Das Buch Jona im Lichte der biblischen Erzählkunst. SSN 12. Assen. Feuillet, A. 1947a. Les sources du livre de Jonas. RB 54: 161-86. ———. 1947b. Le sens du livre de Jonas. RB 54: 340–61. Fränkel, L. 1967. werahΩΩamaœyw {al koœl ma{aséaœyw. Ma{aœno®t 9: 193–207 (in Hebrew). ———. 1972. Ha}antitezah keyesoœd sipru®ti bemiqraœ}. Pp. 129–46 in hammiqraœ} weto®ldo®t yiséraœ}eœl. Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Golka, F. W. 1986. Jonaexegese und Antijudaismus. Kirche und Israel 1: 51–61. ———. 1988. Divine Repentance: A Commentary on the Book of Jonah. In Divine Revelation, ed. G. A. F. Knight and F. W. Golka. Grand Rapids. Good, E. M. 1965. Irony in the Old Testament. Philadelphia. Holbert, J. C. 1981. Deliverance Belongs to Yahweh: Satire in the Book of Jonah. JSOT 21: 59–81. Kugel, J. L. 1981. The Idea of Biblical Poetry. New Haven. Landes, G. M. 1967. The Kerygma of the Book of Jonah. Int 21: 3–31. Lohfink, N. 1961. Und Jona ging zur Stadt hinaus (Jona 4:5). BZ 5: 185–203. Magonet, J. D. 1976. Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah. Bern. Rauber, D. F. 1970. Jonah—The Prophet as Shlemiel. BToday 49: 29–37. Strikowsky, A. 1976. Divine Nomenclature in Jonah. Niv: A Journal Devoted to Halacha, Jewish Thought and Education. Friends of the Midrashia in Israel. Trible, P. L. 1963. Studies in the Book of Jonah. Diss. New York. JONATHAN MAGONET