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.
69
JONAH’S SAILORS THEIR LOT CASTING
AND
The first consideration is that the literary setting of the story would
seem to suggest that, given the severity of the storm, it would not have been
either the time or place to engage in divinatory practices, even hasty ones 10.
The first chapter of Jonah repeatedly emphasizes that all aspects of the
storm were “mighty/great†(lwdg/hlwdg), “tempestuous†(r[s), even
“ dreadful/evil †(h[r) — so much so that even the ship itself thought it
would break up (see 1,4.5.7.11.12.13; cf. also “raging†π[z in v. 15).
Correlatively, one might well wonder if sailors would have normally used
lots or had them on hand 11, and/or precisely what kinds of lots they would
have used — especially if they did not have “standard†lots readily
available 12. Then again, “lots†(twlrwg) are so notoriously unspecific in the
claims about Jonah’s precise generic intent (which I would argue is polyvalent
at any rate), but I do believe that such literary artistry — “rhetoric†in
Muilenburg’s understanding of the term — often serves to delight an audience
(among other things). On the latter point, cf. Cicero’s famous description of the
“ supreme orator†as “one whose speech instructs, delights and moves the
minds of his audience†(De optimo genere oratorum, 1.3; 5.16) — Cicero, De
inventione. De optimo genere oratorum. Topica (LCL 386; Cambridge, MA
1949) 356-357, 366-367.
BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€, 75-77, 82, 100-101,
10
discusses religious practices under duress at various points in his work.
Unfortunately, however, virtually all of the evidence he cites is later and
classical in provenience (see 77, 81), as, for example, in the case of the Greek
legend preserved in Diodorus (V 58.2), which “tells how the Phoenician prince
.
Cadmus called upon ‘Poseidon’ to protect him during several storms on his
voyage from Phoenicia to Greece†(BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His
God â€, 82). BRODY’S only Semitic textual data comes from the book of Jonah
itself (82, 84) — though he also cites Ps 107,23-20 in passing (82, n. 53).
I.e., because such means are often associated with cult/worship and
11
therefore with cultic experts (see esp. CRYER, Divination in Ancient Israel,
passim). But then again, Jonah’s sailors prove to be particularly pious! For
religiosity among Levantine sailors more generally, see BRODY, “ Each Man
Cried Out to His Godâ€, esp. 73-85. He also cites Periplus of Hanno § 14,
which indicates that “soothsayers†(Greek manteis) were taken on a particular
voyage from Carthage along the coast of Africa — see K. MÜLLER, Geographi
Graeci Minores (Paris 1882) I, 10-12. Unfortunately, no further information
about these diviners or their work on board a ship is provided by Periplus —
BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€, 84.
See BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€, 84, who notes that
12
“ astragali, or sheep’s knucklebones, were rolled like dice to determine omens
. . . . One actual astragal was uncovered from the Cape Gelidonya shipwreck, and
hints at attempts of the crew to determine the future fortunes of the vessel,
which was eventually lost beneath the waves.†While the find is evocative,
BRODY’s conclusion must remain tentative. Cf. J.M. SASSON, Jonah. A New
Translation with Introduction, Commentary, and Interpretation (AB 24B; New