Who Was the 'King of Nineveh' in Jonah 3:6?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Tyndale Bulletin 47.2 (Nov. 1996) 301-314. WHO WAS THE ‘KING OF NINEVEH’ IN JONAH 3:6? Paul Ferguson Summary This article seeks to show the title ‘king of Nineveh’ is not an anachronism. Comparison with Aramaic use of the north-west Semitic mlk, important in a north Israelite context, may suggest that a city or provincial official might have been under consideration. Cuneiform evidence seems to suggest that no distinction is made between city and province in designating a governor. Common custom was to give provincial capitals the same name as the province. This could explain the fact that the book of Jonah says the ‘city’ was a three day walk (3:3). I. The ‘King of Nineveh’ The Hebrew phrase melek nînĕveh (‘king of Nineveh’) is found in the Old Testament only in Jonah 3:6. It never occurs in any contemporary documents. Most literature proceeds on the assumption that the author used this expression to refer to the king of the Assyrian empire. It has often been suggested that this wording indicates the author wrote centuries after the fall of this nation.1 1. ‘King of Nineveh’ vs ‘King of Assyria’ If this be the case, then one must consider why, if the author of the book lived centuries after the ‘historical Jonah’ of 2 Kings 14:25, he 1W. Neil indicates this term ‘could hardly be used if the Assyrian empire had been in existence.’ See ‘Jonah’ in IBD (Nashville: Abingdon, 1962) 966; L.C. Allen, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976) 186. However, in the later supplementary volume G. Landes states: ‘This assumption should be abandoned’: see ‘Jonah’ in Supplementary Volume to IBD (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976) 490. 302 TYNDALE BULLETIN 47.2 (1996) would ignore the usual designation ‘king of Assyria’. This phrase is found thirty times in 2 Kings 18-20. This problem is heightened by the fact that he is in the habit of meticulously selecting exact phrasing from the ‘Kings corpus’.2 It is further compounded by the fact that the book mentions nothing about ‘Assyria’ or the ‘Assyrian empire’. One would expect that a post exilic author would betray some trace of the strong memory of Assyrian war crimes denounced by the prophet Nahum. Yet Nineveh is presented as a large city faced with doom rather than a super-power threatening to swallow her neighbours. The evil denounced in the book has not passed on the whole earth (Na. 3:19) but consists of violence within their own territory (Jon. 3:8). It does not seem plausible that a writer living long after the eighth century BC would ignore a wide body of tradition about the ‘evil empire’, invent an apparently unique title (‘king of Nineveh’), and confine his descriptions to local level. It will be the purpose of this paper to probe the possibility that the portrayal of Nineveh in the book of Jonah fits the historical scenario of the mid-eighth century BC rather than the traditions current hundreds of years later. Tiglath-Pileser III (745-727) restored the vitality of the Assyrian empire. He is the first sovereign to impose regular governmental administration as far west as Palestine. While others had merely received sporadic tribute, he incorporated these territories into provinces. This king did not appear till shortly after the historical Jonah.3 After 732 BC large slices of Jeroboam II’s domain in north Israel were organised into Assyrian Provinces. After 721 BC all of the 2Some examples are: Jon. 1:1 and 2 Ki. 14:25; Jon. 3:1-3 and 1 Ki. 17:2-10; Jon. 4:3 and 1 Ki. 19:4. It is very difficult to explain how an author writing centuries later could find Jonah’s village and the name of his father yet not know the usual designation for the Assyrian monarch (‘king of Assyria’). 3P. Garelli, ‘Achievement of Tiglath-Pileser III: Novelty or Continuity?’ in M. Cogan and I. Eph’al (eds.), Ah, Assyria (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991) 46. Assuming that Jonah’s prophecy in 2 Ki. 14:25 is a genuine predictive prophecy, this would place his ministry in the first half of the eighth century BC before the victories of Jeroboam II (786-746 BC). A revitalised Assyria after 745 would not seem to fit the crisis situation portrayed in the book. FERGUSON: The ‘King of Nineveh’ 303 northern kingdom was incorporated into the Assyrian empire’s governmental structure. Samaria, Megiddo, Ramoth Gilead and Qarnaim, cities under Israelite control in Jonah’s day, became provincial capitals with a governor’s palace in each city. Archaeological evidence seems to suggest that business was carried on in the Assyrian language.4 From this time on people would think in terms of an Assyrian empire rather than a far off king who sometimes made incursions into the West. 2. North Israelite and Aramaic Use of MLK At this time the north-west Semitic word for ‘king’ (mlk), especially when associated with a city, often meant ‘governor’ of a province rather than king over a nation. This is clearly displayed on a bilingual statue from Gozan, a western Assyrian province. This is the only text of any size so far discovered in both Aramaic and Assyrian. The Aramaic word mlk is regularly translated with the Assyrian šakin which means ‘governor’.5 It should be noted at this point that the language of the book of Jonah is not pure, official, Jerusalem dialect. As early as 1909 S.R. Driver suggested that some of the unusual linguistic features in this work ‘might possibly be compatible with a pre-exilic origin in northern Israel’.6 In 1961 Otto Loretz extended Driver’s remark in the light of more recent advances in comparative Semitics. His conclusion is that the linguistic oddities in the book all relate to a northern Israelite dialect.7 4For a suggested map of Assyrian provinces in the former area of the northern kingdom see Y. Aharoni and M. Avi-yonah, Macmillan Bible Atlas (New York: Macmillan, 1977) 95. For influence of Aramaic and Assyrian on dialects of Biblical Hebrew see M. Cogan and H. Taylor, II Kings (New York: Doubleday, 1988) 7-9; E. Kutscher, A History of the Hebrew Language (Leiden: Brill, 1982) 71-73; A. Hurvitz, ‘Aramaisms in Biblical Hebrew’, IEQ 18 (1968) 236. 5Assyrian lines 8, 9, 15 and 19 have GAR.KUR [= šakin māti] URU gu-za-ni while the corresponding Aramaic lines (6, 7, and 13 have mlk:gwzn. See A.A. Assaf, P. Bordreuil and A.R. Millard, La Statue de Tell Fekherye (Paris: Etudes Assyriologiques, 1982) 13, 23; A.R. Millard and P. Bordreuil, ‘A Statue from Syria with Assyrian and Aramaic Inscriptions’ in BA 45 (1982) 135-41. 6S.R. Driver, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1956 repr.) 322. 7O. Loretz, ‘Herkunft und Sinn der Jona-Erzählung’ in BZ 5 (1961) 18-29. 304 TYNDALE BULLETIN 47.2 (1996) Unfortunately, beyond the Samaritan ostraca little archaeological evidence is available about this dialect.8 What is known is that with Phoenicia on the West and Aramaic kingdoms on the West and North, there must have been a considerable amount of amalgamation. Aramaean incursions into Galilee began as early as the war between Asa and Baasha in the early ninth century BC (1 Ki. 14:20). An extended Aramaic inscription was recently discovered at Tel Dan probably dated around 841 BC.9 This suggests that Aramaic could probably have been understood in north Israel. In an Israelite context early Aramaic influence on the language would be more prevalent than in the South. Thus when 1 Kings 20:1 mentions that Benhadad had 32 kings with him, the meaning would be 32 heads of cities rather than monarchs over kingdoms. Aramaic influence is further indicated in this chapter by the remark that even in the days of Benhadad’s father Aramaeans had established bazaars in Samaria (v. 34). II. Interchangeability of City and Province Names The German archaeologist Walter Andrae found 135 stone monuments in the city of Aššur. Most of them are probably from the century just preceding the historical Jonah. Some of these stelae actually designate the governor of Nineveh by substantially the same cuneiform signs used on the bilingual statue. In one stele he is called 8G.A. Rendsburg (‘On the writing BYTDWD in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan’, IEJ 45 [1995] 24-25) indicates that many features of northern Hebrew had Aramaic parallels because Israel looked to Aram as a cultural centre. Rendsburg is preparing a full scale study of northern Hebrew found in sections of Kings which relate to the northern kingdom. See for the moment his Linguistic Evidence for the Northern Origin of Selected Psalms (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). 9A. Biran and J. Naveh, ‘An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan’, IEJ 43 (1993) 81-98. For a recent attempt to revise the dating see idem, ‘The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment’, IEJ 45 (1995) 1-18. FERGUSON: The ‘King of Nineveh’ 305 the ‘governor of the city of Nineveh’ (no. 128) and on another the ‘governor of the province of Nineveh’ (no. 66).10 Both expressions could be expressed in Hebrew by the phrase ‘king of Nineveh’ (melek nînĕveh). Apparently in such contexts Assyrians did not carefully distinguish between a province or a city.11 The terms could be used interchangeably. The same basic phrasing occurs in the eponym lists. These are the names of Assyrian officials who had the honour of having the year named after them.