Jonah 4,11 and the Problem of Exegetical Anachronism

Abstract

Modern interpretations of Jonah 4,11 see God's reference to the Ninevites' animals as an example of divine solicitude for all created life. This article, rather, looks at the reference in light of ancient religious and politcial beliefs. Doing so demonstrates that the Ninevite beasts' function in the story is as sacrficial animals. The offering of their animals shows the Ninevites submitting to the sovereignty of God, and portrays God in terms of ancient Near Eastern royal ideology.

The Hebrew Bible and the ‘Animal Turn’

“…The short narrative contains one of the most famous non-human characters in the Hebrew Bible, the ‘great fish’ who swallows Jonah whole until ordered to vomit him up on the shore following his repentance. It is no surprise that scholars have been drawn to this short work as a test-case for the application of Animal Studies (Bolin 2010; Abusch 2013; Shemesh 2010).…”

“…Modern scholars are often no more prepared to see a reference to actual concern or consideration of non-human animal lives in the last line of Jonah. Bolin (2010) claims such a reading would amount to ‘exegetical anachronism’ and situates the reference to animals against the background of ancient sacrificial practices (p. 100). Shemesh (2010) reads the final phrase against larger theological statements elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible which emphasize the deity’s dominion and mercy over all creation.…”

Acceptable Anachronism in Biblical Studies

“…Fifth, finding such phenomena in Scripture should spur on biblical interpreters to further refine the mechanisms for discerning potential anachronisms. Articles concerned with (different) forms of anachronism rely upon archaeological findings and forensic reconstructions (e.g., Lawrence 2008; Bolin 2010), as does the “darics” example of 1 Chr 29.7 and, indeed, any accusation of inaccurate descriptions such as “camels” and “Philistines” in Genesis. Room remains for further clarification of alleged anachronisms.…”

“…This equation is certainly drawn in biblical studies: “the text is plainly anachronistic—that is, in error” (Depuydt 2005, 244). We are warned against anachronistic interpretations of the Bible (e.g., Bolin 2010, 159–63), and translators especially are adjured to minimize any potential for readers’ misunderstanding (recently in The Bible Translator , Lawrence 2008). One of the most prominent Bible interpreters in conservative circles today continues to plead for vigilance in translation: God has revealed himself to people in time-space history—to particular men and women, spatially and temporally and linguistically located.…”

The Book of Jonah in Recent Research

“…West, citing Jones Nelson, argues such an approach favors ‘the decentring of the dominant discourse in favour of exchange’ (Jones Nelson 2014 in West). Thus, after reviewing the ending verse of Jonah as a rhetorical question through deep engagement with Ben Zvi’s (2009), Guillaume (2009), Shemesh’s (2010), and Bolin’s (2010) work, West engages the final verse in light of the journals of the Dutch East India Company and the ‘cattle culture’ of the indigenous Tswana. West’s review of these letters and journals reveals that over several years the Dutch became increasingly perplexed and frustrated as the indigenous population was coy about trading their cattle – a singular purpose for the profit-driven trading company.…”