71 JONAH’S SAILORS THEIR LOT CASTING AND reflect an intra-Israelite and/or Yahwistic perspective. Then again the same might also be said of the narrative perspective of the book of Jonah and thus 1,7 14. The point, regardless, is that in the vast majority of instances — perhaps even all instances, given the caveats above — the mention of lots and lot casting in the Old Testament reflects Israelite, not foreign practice. Pursuant to the second consideration, it is not surprising, but nevertheless noteworthy, to raise a third — namely, that there is no cognate for biblical Hebrew lrwg in the ancient Near Eastern languages, at least not with reference to the developed practices of cleromancy 15. As F.H. Cryer puts it: one notes again that there is no useful extra-Israelite etymology for the goral-lot from the early pre-exilic period: it seems that almost all of Israel’s magical terminology, licit and ‘illicit’, was home- grown 16. Jonah’s sailors, then, in employing divination are perhaps not unusual — even and especially when doing so in dire straits — but the fact that they are specifically said to cast lots (lpn + twlrwg) ; an oft-attested Israelite practice, using Israelite terminology 17, suggests an “Israelite” perspective Any possible differences between Jonah 1,7 and the other five texts 14 would turn, then, on its form as prophetic narrative as opposed to the others, which are either non-prophetic narrative (Esther) or prophetic/oracular poetry (Joel, Obadiah, Nahum). Thanks to J.K. MEAD for bringing this to my attention. NIDOTTE I, 840; TDOT II, 450; TLOT I, 310; cf. HALOT I, 185: “Arb. 15 with arrows”; and BDB 174 can list only Arabic garwal (“ pebble ”), garila (“to ˘ ˘ be stony”), and garal (“stony ground”) as possible cognates. None of these are ˘ attested in Old/Epigraphic South Arabian — see J.C. BIELLA, Dictionary of Old South Arabic, Sabaean Dialect (HSS 25; Chico, CA 1982). KITZ’S study (“The Hebrew Terminology”) is notably restricted to the verbs used with lots. The interpretation of twlrwg as some kind of “stone” seems to come primarily, if not exclusively, from the Arabic cognate (cf. TDOT II, 450). However, the data here are equivocal: “pre-Islamic Arabs used wooden arrows without points”, so, “[i]n light of religio-historical parallels, it is ... possible that they were made of small pieces of wood” (TDOT II, 450). In short, the practice of lot casting is unclear to this day; hence, “[o]ne should possibly assume various techniques for various places, times, and contexts” (TLOT I, 310). CRYER, Divination in Ancient Israel, 277. It is worth noting that he 16 believes the goral-lot is, in the main, a late phenomenon (276). HALOT I, 185 agrees : “mostly in late writings”. While not a definitive criterion, this is nevertheless an important observation that could be added to the discussion here. Esth 3,7 and 9,24 demonstrate that use of a loanword was not impossible 17 or out of question.