74 BRENT A. STRAWN (Chapter 1) Israelite divinatory practices Right action and prayer lot casting (1,7) 1 1 attempts to save Jonah (1,13) 1 prayer ➝ ➝ (1,14) 1 fear, sacrifice, vows (1,16) 26 ➝ (Chapter 3) Israelite penitential practices Right action and prayer belief in God (3,5a) 1 1 fasting, sackcloth (3,5b.7-8a) 1 prayer ➝ ➝ (3,8b) 1 repentance from evil ways ➝ (3,8c.10a) In this way, the sailors’ lot casting can (and should) be seen as participating in the larger theological point of the book of Jonah with regard to the nations. These sailors cast lots, after all, rather than engage in other kinds of ancient Near Eastern divination 27. At the same time, the correspondence of the accounts in chapter 1 and chapter 3 is not exact; there is asymmetry along with the symmetry 28. On the one hand, the overall length of the sailors’ account (1,5-16, esp. vv. 7-15) seems expansive when set next to the report of the Ninevites (3,5-10, esp. vv. 5, 10), which seems rather compressed by comparison. On the The correspondence of 1,16 to the repentance of 3,8c.10a further 26 underscores the likelihood that the sailors are portrayed as converting to Yahwism. See further R. HAUDE, “Jona – von der Überflüssigkeit des Steuermanns ”, Texte & Kontexte 26 (2003) 44-47. Perhaps they turn to lot casting because their prayers to their other deities 27 are ineffectual (see 1,5a and TRIBLE, Rhetorical Criticism, 136 on 1,5b). Although one cannot know for sure, perhaps these other, non-Israelite divination practices would have been referred to by some form of μsq, which is a general term for divination in the Hebrew Bible, often with negative c o n n o t a t i o n s (cf. TLOT I , 310-11; BDB 890). Whatever the case, the considerations offered above argue against TRIBLE’s, “The Book of Jonah”, 498 statement that “[t]he story does not report that Yahweh (or any other deity) directed the outcome of the exercise but simply that the sailors ‘cast lots, and the lot fell on Jonah’ (v. 7c). In a setting of violence, chance alone provides the way to resolve the conflict. But the chance is caused”. While the story itself may not make such a report, the rhetoric and rhetorical-structure of the book/ story does suggest as much. Moreover, in the light of the arguments presented here, the lot casting is a good bit more than pure chance (cf. also Acts 1,26). J. JEREMIAS, “Die Sicht der Völker im Jonabuch (Jona 1 und Jona 3)”, 28 Gott und Mensch im Dialog. Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag (ed. M. WITTE) (BZAW 345/1-2; Berlin 2004) I, 555-567, in particular, has made a strong case for the differences between the presentation of the sailors and the Ninevites. While such differences are certainly manifest in the text, they do not invalidate the larger rhetorical-critical symmetries.