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.
76 BRENT A. STRAWN
Just as the foreigners know how to repent and fast, Israelite-style, in
chapter 3, so also they know how to divine and pray, equally Israelite-style,
in chapter 1. Both presentations put the reluctant prophet to shame.
Moreover, the fact that the Hebrew Bible not infrequently involves
religious officials, including prophetic figures in the casting of lots (see,
e.g., Lev 16,8-10; Josh 14,1-2; 21:1-4; 1 Sam 10,20-24; Neh 10,35; 1
Chronicles 24-26; cf. Luke 1,9), adds yet more support to seeing in 1,7 the
narrator’s sympathetic presentation of the sailors but negative portrayal of
Jonah 33. So it comes as no real surprise that the sailors’ right(eous)ly-
conducted lot casting reveals the problem person in question: the runaway
prophet himself!
Candler School of Theology Brent A. STRAWN
Emory University
Atlanta, GA 30322, U.S.A.
SUMMARY
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.
Cf. ARNOLD, “Necromancy and Cleromancyâ€, esp. 207-213, on how
33
cleromancy is used in 1 and 2 Samuel to characterize David’s desire to seek
God’s guidance in contrast to Saul, who is “forced to rely on his own instincts
and intuition such as they are†(210). ARNOLD goes on to write: “The contrast
is one between legitimate Yhwh-prophecy, on the one hand, and illegitimate
magical ritual on the other. Saul turns to the illegitimate use of magic as a
means of seeking guidance because he has closed his eyes to the prophetic
word †(211). With reference to Jonah 1 proper, see LICHTERT, “Par terre et par
mer ! â€, 23; and J. HAUSMANN, “Wer ist wahrhaft gottesfürchtig? Jona 1 und
sein Beitrag zur Diskussion um das Problem Israel und die Völkerâ€, Von Gott
reden. Beiträge zur Theologie und Exegese des Alten Testaments. Festschrift
f ü r Siegfried Wagner zum 65. Geburtstag (eds. D. V I E W E G E R – E.-
J. WASCHKE) (Neukirchen – Vluyn 1995) 105-116.