Brent A. Strawn, «Jonah’s Sailors and Their Lot Casting: A Rhetorical-Critical Observation», Vol. 91 (2010) 66-76
Several considerations suggest that the sailors’ lot casting in Jonah 1 is unusual and meant to be both surprising and literarily delightful. The most important of these is the correspondence between the sailors and the Ninevites within the book’s rhetorical structure. This correspondence suggests that the sailors’ lot casting is a particularly Israelite practice with the sailors themselves appearing as adepts in Israelite ritual activity. That depiction corresponds to the Ninevites’ ability to know precisely how to repent in chapter 3. In both cases, the foreigners are portrayed in particularly pious ways in contrast to the reluctant prophet.
68 BRENT A. STRAWN
Trible is not the only person to make such an observation (though she
has perhaps made it most clearly and extensively), and my point here is not
to challenge it, but to draw out an implication of this correspondence that
seems to have gone unrecognized or un(der)developed heretofore. That
implication concerns the meaning and significance of the sailors’ lot
casting (1,7) in light of its corresponding material in 3,10.
The casting of lots (cleromancy) is, of course, widely attested in the
ancient world 5 and is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible a number of times 6.
The precise “lots†in question appear to have varied, both within ancient
Israel and outside it 7. So, on the face of it, the sailors’ casting of lots is not
unusual and may even be expected in such dire circumstances 8. However,
four considerations suggest that the sailors’ activity is rather unusual and,
within the context of Jonah, is meant to be surprising and, literarily-
speaking, delightful 9.
Convenient overviews may be found in C. VAN DAM, The Urim and
5
Thummim. A Means of Revelation in Ancient Israel (Winona Lake, IN 1997)
esp. 40-44, 203-210, 215-217; F.H. CRYER, Divination in Ancient Israel and its
Near Eastern Environment. A Socio-Historical Investigation (JSOTSup 142;
Sheffield 1994) esp. 276-277. See also A.M. KITZ, “The Hebrew Terminology
of Lot Casting and Its Ancient Near Eastern Contextâ€, CBQ 62 (2000) 207-214;
A. TAGGAR-COHEN, “The Casting of Lots among the Hittites in Light of
Ancient Near Eastern Parallelsâ€, JANES 29 (2002) 97-103; S. IWRY, “New
Evidence for Belomancy in Ancient Palestine and Phoeniciaâ€, JAOS 81 (1961)
27-34 ; and B.T. ARNOLD, “Necromancy and Cleromancy in 1 and 2 Samuelâ€,
CBQ 66 (2004) 199-213.
lrwg (“ lot â€) alone is mentioned some 77 times. See H.H. SCHMIDT, “lr/G â€,
6
:
TLOT I, 310; BDB 174; HALOT I, 185; C. VAN DAM, “lr/G â€, NIDOTTE I, 840-
:
842 ; W. DOMMERSHAUSEN, “lr/G â€, TDOT II, 450-456; and J. LINDBLOM, “Lot-
:
Casting in the Old Testamentâ€, VT 12 (1962) 164-178.
Cf. NIDOTTE I, 840: “apparently [lrwg] refers to stones ... or other
7
objects (no description exists) utilized in lot casting. For the most part there is
no information with respect to the technique used. The vocabulary associated
with casting lots is rather variedâ€. Of course, there is Akkadian puru (see CAD
¯
P, 528-29), cognate with biblical Hebrew pûr (Esth 3,27; 9,24.26; note also
pûrîm in Esth 9,26.28.29.31.32), which is helpful in the study of lots.
Note A.J. BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€. The Specialized
8
Religion of Canaanite and Phoenician Seafarers (HSM 58; Atlanta, GA 1998)
83-84. See further there, esp. 63-85 for sacred spaces aboard ships (including
portable altars, divine figurines, and sacred standards in the stern) and religious
ceremonies performed by sailors. In this regard, the study of M. MULZER,
“ hnyps (Jona 1,5) ‘(gedeckter) Laderaum’â€, BN 104 (2000) 83-94, may be of
import. He argues that hnyps refers to a particular place in the ship’s cargo hold.
That is to say that the lot casting ties in with the humorous, parodic,
9
satirical, and/or ironical part(s) of the composition. I do not wish to make any
FOLLOW US