The Book of Jonah: God and Humanity Don’t Understand Each Other

This reflection is drawn from and based upon my recent Hermeneia Commentary on Jonah: Susan Niditch, Jonah: A Commentary, Hermeneia (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 2023). Biblical translations follow my translation there. Tarshish is presented as a coastal location, which some identify with an actual port in the Western Mediterranean, perhaps Tartessus in southern Spain. For references in the Bible and associations with seafaring and trade, see Niditch, Jonah, 33.

See Jeremiah 11:18–23; 12:1–6; 15:10–21; 17:14–18; 18:18–23; 20:7–13; and 20:14–18.

The midrash focuses on portions of Exodus 12–35 and begins with the Rabbis presenting various proof texts to point to the infinite reach of God. It commences exegesis with Exodus 12:1, “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,” a rubric concerning the location of divine revelation and its receivers. The midrash underscores that whereas the holy land has a special status as a locus of divine communication, divine revelation cannot be contained by geographic boundaries. God is everywhere and can reach all locations, all interlocutors. For a thoughtful theological and literary study of rabbinic treatments of Jonah, see Gerda Elata-Alster and Rachel Salmon, “The Deconstruction of Genre in the Book of Jonah: Towards a Theological Discourse,” LitTheo 3 (1989): 40–60; see also Robert C. Gregg, Shared Stories, Rival Tellings: Early Encounters of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 335–361, and for Gregg’s treatment of Mekilta Pisha 1:84–87, see 336–337. On the treatment of Jonah in Mekilta, see Yvonne Sherwood, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 120–123.

Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976), 1:84–87.

See Niditch, Jonah, 8.

Fergus Millar, “Transformations of Judaism under Greco-Roman Rule: Responses to Seth Schwartz’s ‘Imperialism and Jewish Society,’” JJS 57 (2006): 139–158.

Henry Fischel, “Martyr and Prophet,” JQR 37 (1947): 265–280, 363–386. Martyrdom itself has become a valued form of religious expression and identity, a sign of merit, a means of atonement, and a way to attract divine sympathy and forgiveness for his people.

See the translation of the Armenian text in Gregg, Shared Stories, Rival Tellings, 356. The passage begins by noting the miraculous role of the fish:

^{Pseudo-Philo, De Jonah, 18} Because it appeared that the prophet took refuge in the belly of the monster, but was actually protected by the hand of God, he prayed inside the animal, as we heard (from the Bible). He used the mouth of the beast for (his) prayer. Thus a whole new miracle was to be seen, with a sea monster becoming an advocate for the salvation of the prophet.

Translations of Rabbi Eliezer follow Robert A. Harris, Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency: Commentaries on Amos and Jonah. Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (with selections from Isaiah and Ezekiel), TEAMS Commentary Series 1 (Kalamazoo: Medieval Institute Publications, Western Michigan University, 2018), 75–77 (emphasis in the original).

See Robert A. Harris, “Contextual Reading: Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency’s Commentary on Jonah,” in Bringing the Hidden to Light: The Process of Interpretation. Studies in Honor of Stephen A. Geller, ed. Kathryn F. Kravitz and Diane M. Sharon (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 89–92. See also more recently, Harris, Rabbi Eliezer of Beaugency.

Harris also points out that Rabbi Eliezer suggests that Jonah does “learn his lesson,” even before he learns of the Ninevite’s repentance, when YHWH takes him to task over his reaction to the קיקיון (Harris, “Contextual Reading,” 91).

See Adolf Jellinek, ed. Bet-ha Midrasch, 6 vols. (Leipzig, 1853–1877; repr. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1938), 1:102. Similarly, the lament of Jonah while he is inside the fish is treated as a petitionary prayer (ibid., 1:99).

Jonah’s anger in the final scene is probably not best understood as caring for the planting, placing concern for it above the people of Nineveh. See the argument concerning care for the planting by Tzvi Abusch, “Jonah and God: Plants, Beasts, and Humans in the Book of Jonah (An Essay in Interpretation),” JANER 13 (2013): 150–151. Jonathan Alter captures the nuances of the prophet’s character as drawn throughout the tale when he suggests: “Jonah does not pity the plant for withering; rather he is furious that it has been stripped of its vitally necessary shade.” Robert Alter, Strong as Death Is Love: The Song of Songs, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Daniel. A Translation with Commentary (New York: Norton, 2015), 154; see also Edwin M Good, Irony in the Old Testament (Sheffield: The Almond Press, 1981), 53 and Elias Bickerman, “Les deux erreurs du prophète Jonas,” RHPR 45 (1965): 232–264 (238).

In a thoughtful discussion of “othering” in Jonah, Susanne Gillmayr-Bucher suggests that YHWH is the consummate “Other” in the work, and that whereas Jonah “assumes he knows God’s intentions” within the context of Israelite tradition, he fails to appreciate the ways in which “power is left exclusively to YHWH.” In an important thread of thought exemplified by the Jonah narrative, relationships with the deity involve individuals and groups in particular settings rather than a grand Deuteronomistic view of history. Gillmayr-Bucher suggests that the prophet is portrayed as “not willing or able to accept this new point of view” (“Jonah and the Other: A Discourse on Interpretive Competence,” in Imagining the Other and Constructing Israelite Identity in the Early Second Temple Period, ed. Ehud Ben Zvi and Diana V. Edelman [London: Bloomsbury, 2014], 213–216). On the deity as utterly other, see also Alfons Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakuk, NEBAT 8 (Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 164. Walter Crouch suggests that the “primary, central conflict has been from the beginning, unknown to the reader, between the world-view of Yahweh and the world-view of the other main character—Jonah” (“To Question an End, to End a Question: Opening the Closure of the Book of Jonah,” JSOT 62 (1994): 106; esp. 110 on the work’s lack of closure). See also David Lillegard, “Narrative and Paradox in Jonah” Kerux 8 (1993): 19–30. For a nuanced view of the way in which the author of Jonah juxtaposes an exaggerated view of the deity and his power with implicit challenges to the nature of divine power, see Terence E. Fretheim, “The Exaggerated God of Jonah,” WW 27 (2007): 129–133.

As Marvin A. Sweeney observes, YHWH “merely demonstrates (his) capriciousness” in destroying the planting, “YHWH is simply unreliable.” Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 2000), 331. See also Alan Cooper, “In Praise of Divine Caprice: The Significance of the Book of Jonah,” in Among the Prophets: Language, Image and Structure in the Prophetic Writings, ed. Philip R. Davies and David J. A. Clines (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), 144–163. See also Daniel J. Simundson, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 2005), 284–285.

In a similar vein, see James S. Ackerman, “Satire and Symbolism in the Song of Jonah,” in Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith. A Festschrift Honoring Frank Moore Cross, ed. Baruch Halpern and Jon D. Levenson (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982), 213–246 (at 245); and Eitan Levine, “Jonah as a Philosophical Book,” ZAW 96 (1984): 242–244. See also David Noel Freedman, “Did God Play a Dirty Trick on Jonah at the End?” BRev 6 (1990): 26–31.

For a discussion of the role of “incomplete dialogue between Jonah and the Lord” in the narrative of Jonah, see Raymond F. Person Jr., In Conversation with Jonah: Conversation Analysis, Literary Criticism, and the Book of Jonah, JSOT Supp 220 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996), 78; Joel Rosenberg, “Jonah and the Prophetic Vocation,” Response 22 (1974): 26; and David M. Gunn and Danna Nowell Fewell, Narrative in the Hebrew Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), 143.

Grace I. Emmerson points to the “theme of Yahweh’s ineluctable freedom of action” (“Another Look at the Book of Jonah,” ExpTim 88 [1976]: 87). Similarly, T. Desmond Alexander’s emphasizes “God’s right to destroy or deliver” (“Jonah,” 144); Bruce Vawter, Job & Jonah: Questioning the Hidden God (New York: Paulist, 1983), 86. Vawter writes that “Jonah is an antic prophet, but he is also the prophet of an antic God” (p. 110). Comparing Job and Jonah, Leon Roth emphasizes themes of divine compassion and prophetic self-doubt (“Job and Jonah,” in The Dimensions of Job: A Study and Selected Readings,” ed. Nahum N. Glazer [New York: Schocken, 1969], 71–74).

See, e.g., Qohelet 1:1–11; 2:17, 26; 4:7, 16; 7:15; 8:14.

See, e.g., Qohelet 3:14–15.

Jeffrey H. Tigay highlights how recitation of God’s attributes in the context of Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur purposely omits those associated with “strict justice,” providing only those associated with mercy and forgiveness. See Jeffrey Tigay, “The Book of Jonah and the Days of Awe,” CJ 38 (1985–86): 67–76. As Joel Rosenberg implicitly notes, the high holidays emphasize both the private and the public aspects of our religious identities and aspirations; the liturgy for Yom Kippur is a matter of personal religion and community expression, an arena in which the petitioner safely addresses God supported by and reinforced with the voices of fellow petitioners and a place of self-contemplation. See Joel Rosenberg, “Jonah and the Prophetic Vocation,” Response 22 (1974): 26. Editor’s note: On whether YHWH in the Bible is a merciful God who pardons, see Zev Farber, “Does YHWH Remit Punishment,” TheTorah (2018).

For a personal reflection on some of these connections by a great scholar of Judaism, see David Daube, “Jonah: A Reminiscence,” JJS 35 (1984): 36–43. See also the wide-ranging discussion by Janet Howe Gaines, Forgiveness in a Wounded World: Jonah’s Dilemma (Atlanta: SBL, 2003), 146–151; and within the framework of a theoretical approach inspired by the work of René Girard, Sandor Goodhart explores connections between the parable of the קיקיון, sacrifice, and repentance as integral to Jewish receptions of Jonah (“Prophecy, Sacrifice and Repentance in the Story of Jonah,” Semeia 33 [1985]: 43–63). For a thoughtful overview particularly attuned to recurring key language and leitmotifs in Jonah as they relate to biblical tradition and post-biblical Judaism see Paul Kahn, “An Analysis of the Book of Jonah,” Judaism 43 (1994): 87–100.

Gregg, Shared Stories, Rival Tellings, 356.

Gregg, Shared Stories, Rival Tellings, 354.