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.
73
JONAH’S SAILORS THEIR LOT CASTING
AND
(1) “ Pagan †practices (1,5a-b) 23 →
(2) a non-descript but typically Israelite divination practice:
lot casting (1,7) →
(3) acts of Yahwistic piety:
prayer, sacrifice, and vows (1,14.16).
This development, especially the last two steps, foreshadows and
prefigures — as well as corresponds to and correlates with — the later
episode in 3,5-10 where the Ninevites are fully abreast of Israelite
repentance strategies 24. That later episode, in turn, casts light on the
sailors’ earlier lot casting. No longer is that lot casting solely or merely
something that sailors would do — especially not normally — or that
makes perfect sense in the midst of a violent storm at sea, both of
which may be seriously doubted. Instead, the sailors, no less than the
Ninevites, are shown to be “unknowing†or “anonymous Israelitesâ€, as it
were 25. In the one instance, the foreigners are expert in Israelite
divinatory practices, which leads directly to right action and prayer
(chapter 1); in the other, they are expert in Israelite penitential practices,
which again leads directly to right action and prayer (chapter 3). Again,
a progression can be traced:
only in order to contrast it with “the nondeveloping portrait of the Ninevitesâ€
(Rhetorical Criticism, 182; my emphases; cf. 190 on “stages†in the sailors’
recognition). SASSON, Jonah, 111-112 speaks of the sailors changing tactics:
from wanting “to force heaven to single out the guilty†(i.e., the prayers before
the lot casting) to letting the lots do it for them.
See TRIBLE, Rhetorical Criticism, 136, for the possibility that the syntax
23
in 1,5b “implies that the sailors try to appease the sea (a deity?) by sacrificing
their wares. This interpretation resonates with the line, ‘they-cried, each-man to
his-god(s)’ â€. See BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€, 10-11, for a trio
ˇ
of storm gods (Ba’al Samêm, Ba’al Malagê, and Ba’al Sapon) mentioned in the
¯
Ë™
treaty of Esarhaddon and Ba’al of Tyre, who were thought to cause ill-winds or
violent tides and waves against ships. Cf. BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His
God â€, 36 on Milqart’s vanquishing of sea-monsters, and 64-72 on divine
figures housed on board ships. BRODY, “ Each Man Cried Out to His Godâ€, 25,
does not develop the connections between Yamm and Poseidon, nor does he
sufficiently discuss the possible antagonism of these gods in maritime contexts,
citing only Cadmus’ prayer to Poseidon during a tempest.
For fasting with sackcloth, see esp. Neh 9,1; Dan 9,3; and 1 Macc 3,47;
24
cf. also Matt 11,21.
Cf. K. Rahner’s notion of “anonymous Christians†— e.g. P. IMHOF –
25
H. BIALLOWONS (eds.), Karl Rahner in Dialogue. Conversations and Interviews
1965-1982 (New York 1986) 207.