'îr hayyônâ: Jonah, Nineveh, and the Problem of Divine Justice Author: Catherine Lane Muldoon Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3406 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2009 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Theology עיר היונה JONAH, NINEVEH, AND THE PROBLEM OF DIVINE JUSTICE a dissertation by CATHERINE LANE MULDOON submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy September, 2009 i © by CATHERINE LANE MULDOON 2009 ii Catherine Lane Muldoon Jonah, Nineveh, and the Problem of Divine Justice :עיר היונה Director: David S. Vanderhooft ABSTRACT Conventional interpretations of Jonah hold that the book’s purpose is to endorse the power of repentance in averting divine wrath, or to promote a greater appreciation among readers for divine mercy rather than justice, or to dispute “exclusivist” attitudes that would confine divine grace to the people of Israel/Judah. This dissertation argues, in contrast to these interpretations, that the book of Jonah should best be understood as an exploration of the problem of a perceived lack of divine justice. In light of the Jonah’s composition well after the historical destruction of Nineveh, the use of Nineveh in Jonah as an object of divine mercy would have struck a discordant note among the book’s earliest readers. Elsewhere in the prophetic corpus, Nineveh is known specifically and exclusively for its international crimes and its ultimate punishment at the hands of Yhwh, an historical event (612 B.C.E.) that prophets took as a sign of Yhwh’s just administration of the cosmos. The use of Nineveh in Jonah, therefore, is not intended to serve as a hypothetical example of the extent of Yhwh’s mercy to even the worst sinners. Rather, readers of Jonah would have known that the reprieve granted Nineveh in Jonah 3 did not constitute “the end of the story” for Nineveh. To the contrary, the extension of divine mercy to Nineveh in Jonah, which is set in the eighth century B.C.E., would have been seen as only the first of Yhwh’s moves in regard to that “city of blood.” The central conflict of the book resides in Jonah’s doubt in the reliability of divine justice. In the aftermath of Nineveh’s reprieve in Jonah 3, the prophet complains that the merciful outcome was inevitable, and had nothing to do with the Ninevites’ penitence. The episode of the growth and death of the qîqāyôn plant in Jonah 4:6-8, and its explanation in 4:10- 11 comprise Yhwh’s response to Jonah’s accusation. The images employed in the growth and death of the plant, and in the events that follow its demise, connote destruction in the prophetic corpus. When Yhwh explains the meaning of the qîqāyôn to Jonah in 4:10-11, the deity makes no mention of either penitence or mercy. Rather, having established that the qîqāyôn represents Nineveh, Yhwh asserts that, although he has spared Nineveh at present, he will not regret its eventual destruction in the future. iii iv ‘Indeed, indeed, the times are troubled, Sir Edmund,’ he said, ‘but we must remember that we are all in God’s hands.’ ‘I know we are,’ said Mrs. Brandon earnestly, ‘and that is just what is so perfectly dreadful.’ This appalling truth drove everyone into a frenzy of unnecessary conversation which lasted until Sir Edmund went. -Angela Thirkell, Cheerfulness Breaks In iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The completion of this dissertation attests to “what a Woman’s patience can endure and what a Man’s resolution can achieve.” With apologies to Wilkie Collins, the woman in question is my Mom, Barbara J. Muldoon, and the man, my Dad, Robert J. Muldoon, Jr. I dedicate this project to them with love. They were so helpful, enthusiastic, and supportive that I plan to enter another doctoral program post-haste. My wonderful husband, Tom Lawton, also showed commendable powers of endurance and kept me laughing when my own enthusiasm ebbed (which, however, happened so rarely as to be hardly worth mentioning). I would describe Tom as the wind beneath my wings, were I not certain that it would be, for him, the last straw. My partner-in-crime,Walter Kasinskas, provided gin fizz, rousing quotations from Mrs. Miniver, and rides home from the library in the last days. What a friend. Tom also thanks Walter for helping to bear the brunt. Kim Howland actually proofread parts of the final draft, an act that far surpasses the demands of mere friendship, but actually makes us even, in light of my help with her research on cuttlefish in 1994. Aidan Muldoon, age 2, sang “Miss Mary Mack” in a way that was unfailingly encouraging. His parents are also delightful and kind-hearted, as is “the Godfather,” Tim Muldoon. Thanks, you guys. Melissa Tubbs Loya was a generous sounding board and gracious giver of advice from the moment I arrived at BC. If this were not enough, she’s also a hoot. Thank you for everything, Melissa. I am lucky to have in my immediate vicinity two aunts, Mary Muldoon and Martha Mooney. They are good and kind aunts, not to be confused with aunts who chew broken glass and stalk the unwary. In fact, they are great aunts, whose friendship I value tremendously. I think it was Maimonides who said that the greatest act of tzedakah is to give someone a job: thanks to Martha Martin of Hebrew College and Mary Jo Keaney, formerly of Harvard, who provided not only employment and encouragement at crucial moments, but friendship as well. Many thanks to members of BC’s Theology Department, who were generous with their time and insights. John Darr and Yonder Gillihan provided spot-on, challenging comments as readers, and John also contributed wise words on how to shoot a large warthog. Pheme Perkins gave helpful feedback as early portions of the research took shape in our doctoral colloquium. Ruth Langer, of BC’s History of Theology area, had the best advice ever when I was stuck on a point (I think her exact words were, “try doing something else”). Finally, David Vanderhooft gave insightful and patient feedback throughout the writing of the dissertation. For David’s attention to detail, depth and breadth of knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, and for his cogent analysis of what’s really wrong with the Red Sox, I thank him. Catherine Muldoon September 10, 2009 v CONTENTS Chapter One: The Interpretation of Jonah: Problems and Premises 1 Chapter Two: Dating Jonah: Historical and Linguistic Analysis 40 Chapter Three: Jonah and Malachi: And Justice There is None? 80 Chapter Four: What’s In a Name: Jonah ben Amittai 125 Chapter Five: The Qîqāyôn, the Cedar, and the Justice of Yhwh 150 Conclusion 188 Appendix: 4Q76: A Textual Link Between Jonah and Malachi? 190 Bibliography 206 vi Chapter One: Premises and Problems in the Interpretation of Jonah Jonah ben Amittai is a rara avis among biblical protagonists. Drawn irresistably to the symbolic potential in the name yônā (dove), scholarly and popular commentators alike have characterized the prophet with avian epithets ranging from, “the wayward dove”1 to “the wrathful dove.”2 Unlike Noah’s dove, (Gen 8:8-12) which acts as a “messenger of hope,”3 Jonah’s name, it is claimed, belies his nature, which is “sinister,”4 “good-for-nothing,”5 and “selfish and absurd.”6 Indeed, in light of his “moaning”7 and “unappealing” speech,8 Jonah ben Amittai might be more plausibly described, in Henry Higgin’s phrase, as a “bilious pigeon.”9 Where Jonah should rejoice at the repentance of 1 Richard Stamp, “Jonah: The Wayward Dove, A New Look at an Old Prophet,” ExpTim 111, (Dec 1999): 80. 2 Alan Jon Hauser, "Jonah: In Pursuit of the Dove," JBL 104 (1985):34‐35. 3 Thayer S. Warshaw, “The Book of Jonah” in Kenneth R.R. Gros Louis, James S. Ackerman and Thayer S. Warshaw (eds.), Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1974),196. 4 Gerhard von Rad, “Jonah,” in God at Work in Israel (trans. J.H. Marks; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1980), 66. 5 Hans Walter Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1986), 109. 6 Jonathan Magonet, Form and Meaning: Studies in the Literary Techniques of the Book of Jonah (Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983), 53. For a representative catalog of appellations applied to Jonah, see Yvonne Sherwood, "Cross‐Currents in the Book of Jonah: Some Jewish and Cultural Midrashim on a Traditional Text" in Biblical Interpretation 6 (1998), 53. The piling up of adjectives and epithets for Jonah is one of the hallmarks of Jonah scholarship: Sherwood, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah in Western Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 71, remarks that “reading commentary [on Jonah] is like spying on a game of free‐association, in which scholars pass around a list of attributes and a thesaurus…” 7 H.W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, 99. 8 Yehoshua Gitay, “Jonah: The Prophecy of Antirhetoric," in Astrid B. Beck, et al. (eds.), in Fortunate the Eyes that See:Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of His Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 201. 9 "Remember that you are a human being with a soul and the divine gift of articulate speech: that your native language is the language of Shakespeare and Milton and the Bible; and don't sit there crooning like a bilious pigeon." 1 the wicked people of Nineveh, commentators claim, he “pouts.”10 Where he should be grateful for divine mercy, they assert, Jonah instead wallows in a morbid death-wish.