Abstract
This article revisits the fate of Nineveh in Jonah 3, drawing on a cognitive-stylistic analysis of the spatial conceptualization of the city. Building upon previous research that acknowledges a destructive aspect of the book of Jonah, the analysis of space builders (such as directional and locational prepositions, motion verbs, but also keywords and stylistic devices) shows that the city is neither saved nor destroyed by God, but brought down by itself (or rather its people). The foregrounded Nineveh of the first lines of Jonah 3 turns into a Nineveh that functions as Ground. This stylistic overturning, in line with the prophecy in Jonah 3.4, fits the enemy city into a spatial framework controlled by God.
1. Introduction
The books of Jonah and Nahum form the core of biblical texts concerned with the city of Nineveh. Yet, whereas they share this locational focus, they fundamentally differ in the outcome of events for the city: not destroyed in Jonah, destroyed in Nahum (Simon and Schramm 1999: xiv). Scholars have dealt with this issue in various ways. 1 Some suggest a complementarity between the merciful God of Jonah and the vengeful one in Nahum (Machinist 1997: 185; Christensen 2009: 3). Or they stress the ‘radical sovereign freedom of God’ as ultimate explanation for the outcome in the book of Jonah (Bolin 1995: 119). Others argue that the prophecy in Jonah 3.4—‘Nineveh will be overturned’—incorporates both the repentance of Nineveh and its destruction (Halpern and Friedman 1980: 87). In addition to the double entendre in the announcement, a reading in context evokes both notions of repentance and destruction, story and reality (Ben Zvi 2003: 24). 2 In the current contribution, I will take a closer look at this dichotomy between saved and sacked. I will revisit the fate of Nineveh in the book of Jonah, analyzing the textual presentation of the city as space. What kind of space does the language in Jonah create? And can that spatial picture inform the reader regarding the fate of the city? To put it more boldly, did God really save Nineveh in Jonah 3?
As many scholars point out, historically there is far less of a problem. Nineveh has not been destroyed twice (Ben Zvi 2003: 15–20; Christensen 2009: 3, 57–58) and there is no evidence that the Ninevites would initially have repented, as described in Jonah, to then sin again later, leading to the destruction as described in Nahum (Day 1990: 33, 45). From this point of view, the story in Jonah is fiction; it never took place (Machinist, personal communication; Coogan 2011: 516–17). Nevertheless, the biblical text has incorporated both narratives. In this canon, the book of Jonah precedes the book of Nahum, so that the reader has to reconcile one story with the other as well as with the historical reality behind the text (a destroyed Nineveh) (Ben Zvi 2003: 15–16; Simon and Schramm 1999: xvi-xix). The current contribution focuses on the city as it arises from these stories.
A critical-spatial approach comes to a similar conclusion, defining Nineveh as Firstspace in the narrative but as ‘ultimate Secondspace symbol of evil, violence and aggression’ for the late Persian/early Hellenistic readership of the narrative (Prinsloo 2013: 13–14).
In order to answer this question, I will focus on several elements that generate space in language. From the literary field, I borrow the following: the focus on lexical references, the interest in so-called literary or stylistic devices, and the eventual symbolic reading of places (Lutwack 1984: 31–37). In addition, my analysis will take into account the use of directional and locational prepositions as well as motion verbs, two elements that build space according to linguistic research (Talmy 1983: 229; Svorou 1994; Stockwell 2002: 96). All of these features will be discussed in light of the notions Figure and Ground and the movements made to move from one state to the other (Talmy 1983: 232–33; Evans 2009: 31–32; Chilton 2014: 3). Scholars often explain the latter by means of the vase-face image. This image, also known as Rubin's vase, consists of a single picture in which the borders of a vase are also the borders of a face. Depending on what the spectator focuses on, either the vase or the face comes to the foreground while the other element will be perceived as background. Shifting focus allows the Figure to turn into Ground and the other way around.
2. The Initial Picture of Nineveh in Jonah 3
In the first verses of Jonah 3, Nineveh is—as the reader expects—large, glorious, and evil (Simon and Schramm 1999: 4; Sasson 1990: 228; Kamp 2004: 160). The repetition of spatial references to grandeur places emphasis on Nineveh. In vv. 2 and 3 the city is defined as הלודנ (‘great’), referring to both the actual size of the place and its symbolic pendant—the city's importance and power (Sasson 1990: 72; Simon and Schramm 1999: 28). 3 As Talia Sutskover notes, this description of Nineveh connects it with a ‘theme of spatiality’ that runs throughout the book of Jonah (2014: 212). 4 Other expressions also underscore the size of the city, such as the words דלהמ (‘walk’) and םוי (‘day’) in vv. 3 and 4 (Eynickel 2005: 67–72). 5 Likewise, the phrase םיהלאל in v. 3 specifies and highlights the greatness of Nineveh; and this regardless of its exact meaning (‘enormously great city’, ‘city of God’, ‘city of gods’). 6 Furthermore, the word ‘city’ itself appears three times and the name Nineveh four times in the opening verses of ch. 3. Within the scope of these few verses, the city is very present (Trible 1994: 178–79).
This expression is used primarily in relation to Assyrian cities in the Hebrew Bible (Sasson 1990: 72). Together with the recurrence of the root לדג in all of the chapters of Jonah, it functions as a Leitmotif (Sasson 1990: 72; Sutskover 2014: 212–13). According to Simon and Schramm (1999: 4), the size of the city is related to the ‘magnitude of its wickedness’ (see also Eynickel 2005: 67–68). Prinsloo (2013: 17) remarks that on two other occasions (Josh. 10.2 and Jer. 22.8) big cities are condemned.
In her analysis, Sutskover's primary focus is on Jonah and God, on ‘the psychological and emotional changes and adjustments that both parties experience… emphasized by the symbolic impact of directional markers and static spaces’ (2014: 216).
In many languages it is not unusual to express time by means of space (Haspelmath 1997: 1; Chilton 2014: 3). In this particular passage, it is the other way around: a spatial distance is expressed through the time needed to cover it. The temporal expression of space seems to play upon the forty days until the overturning of Nineveh. The great city Nineveh, three days in size, thus is given a very great amount of time, forty days, before her fate will be irreversible (Simon and Schramm 1999: 28).
For further discussion, see n. 8.
The prepositions in the passage clarify the position of the city further. In v. 2, the preposition לא directs the gaze twice to Nineveh: Jonah has to go to Nineveh and speak to her. 7 The preposition recurs in the subsequent verse where God's command is repeated in the execution by Jonah: םקיו הונינ לא דליו הנוי (‘and Jonah got up and went to Nineveh’). 8 In v. 4, Jonah arrives in Nineveh, הונינב, the destination of his journey.
Only in the second instance, in a subordinate clause, the preposition לא refers to Jonah. The main focus in this verse is Nineveh, not Jonah.
In this verse, the preposition ל occurs in relation to God. While it is also possible that God's role is foregrounded in this verse, the expression םיהלאל is ambiguous and the role of God therefore unclear. Scholars have suggested several readings of it: (1) an extremely large city (as superlative); (2) a large city to God (even he is impressed); (3) a large city to gods (possibly the Ninevite gods or perhaps more inclusive of gods in general); (4) a large city of God (based on Gen. 10.11–12 where it is suggested that Nineveh is one of God's [indirect] creations) (Sasson 1990: 228). Only in the case of number 4, and possibly number 2, would the Israelite god function as Figure, and even then, in a less prominent way than Nineveh which is foregrounded on several levels.
Various motion verbs offer additional foregrounding of the city. These verbs express movement on a horizontal or vertical path (Talmy 1985: 68–72). Two movements are dominant in the first verses: an upward vertical movement (םוק in vv. 2–3) and a horizontal movement toward (דלה in vv. 2–3, אוב in v. 4) (Magonet 1983: 14–15; Craig 1993: 61; Kamp 2004: 169). 9 In addition to these motion verbs, the nominal form of דלה, i.e., דלהמ (vv. 3–4), adds to the horizontal movement toward.
Motion verbs and the up-down contrast are also played out in the first chapters of Jonah, as various scholars have pointed out. See, e.g., Halpern and Friedman 1980: 80–81; Trible 1994: 183; Person 1996: 69; Kamp 2004: 116, 168; Sutskover 2014: 206–10. Sutskover labels ch. 3 as ‘traveling on the horizontal axis’ (2014: 211).
The above features show that Nineveh in Jonah 3.2–4 is a Figure in the text. The city is presented as an elevated center (following the directions up and to). The emphasis on the greatness of Nineveh and its implied power add to the picture of an upward city.
10
These observations, i.e., that the city is up and about, are in sync with the work done on orientational metaphors by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson. Orientational metaphors are metaphors drawing on the position of the human body in its environment (Lakoff and Johnson 1980: 15). Thus, one is at the height of one's power (
This concurs with Prinsloo's critical-spatial analysis (2013: 18), in which ‘the Ninevites’ Secondspatial perception of their city as the ultimate symbol of power, security, prosperity, comfort and protection' is perceived as vertical and upwards. The biblical text seems to evoke this symbol by means of language that expresses an upward, and also toward, orientation.
Whereas the metaphors themselves are rather universal, the preference for one orientation over another is deemed culture-specific (Basson 2005: 10–11).
Cognitive linguistics describes this opposition traditionally as
3. The Overturning of Nineveh
In the remainder of the story from Jonah 3.5 onward, the spatial picture of Nineveh changes radically. The city no longer plays the role of Figure; it moves to the background (cf. Kamp 2004: 144; Person 1996: 58). The same devices that created a foregrounded Nineveh in the initial verses now achieve the opposite. In v. 6, the word of God still comes to the king of Nineveh (חונינ ךלמ לא רבדה עגיו), but after this the prepositions mainly describe removal. The king rises from his throne, takes off“his mantle (v. 6: וילעמ ותרדא רבעיו ואסכמ םקיר). The people consequently return from their evil path and from their turmoil (v. 8: ןמו הערה וכרדמ שיא ובשיו םהיפכב רשא סמחה), hoping God will return from his anger (v. 9: בשו ופא ןורחמ). And indeed, when God sees that the people have left from their evil road, God regrets his evil plans (v. 10: ובש יכ םהישעמ תא םיהלאה אריוהשע אלו םהל תושעל רבד רשא הערה לע םיהלאה םחניו הערה םכרדמ). 14
Prinsloo (2013: 9–11) has developed a similar frame, though he speaks of ‘near’ and ‘far’ on the horizontal axis and ‘up’ and ‘down’ on the vertical one. In each pair the first term is perceived as positive (because closer to God), the second one as negative (because further away from God). Similarly, Person (after Halpern and Friedman) 1996: 71; Sutskover 2014: 212.
Different directions are present in v. 6 (הונינ ךלמ לא, ‘to the king of Nineveh’), v. 8 (םיהלא לא ואקיו ‘and they cried out to God’), and in v. 10 (םהל תושעל רבד רשא, ‘the evil which he said to do to them’). Note that God's answer in v. 10 does not mirror the orientation of the people (i.e., away from), even though most interpretations understand it in that way (הערה
The motion verbs in the episode affirm this change in movement (Kamp 2004: 168). In addition to actions of removal (v. 6: רבע, vv. 8–10: בוש), downward movements occur in v. 6 where the king sits himself down in the dust (רפאה לע בשיו) and in v. 9 where the Ninevites express their fear of perishing (דבאנ אלו) (Kamp 2004: 122, 144, 173). Thus, the people and king initially avert the impending destruction by means of lowering themselves, literally and figuratively. In a second instance, the Ninevites remove themselves from their evil roads (הערה וכרדמ שיא ובשיו). Both movements (down and away from) counter the movement of the opening of ch. 3. Neither of the new directions is associated with salvation, although fasts and sackcloth create the expectation of an uplifting action by the deity to follow (as, e.g., in Judg. 20.26–28). The repentance of the people becomes all the more intriguing when taking into account how they mirror God's possible behavior (v. 8: הערה
Simon and Schramm speak of ‘measure for measure’, following the rabbinic tradition: ‘The concept of measure for measure in the relationship between the purging of sins and God's repenting is expressed by the use of the root sh-w-v to indicate both what is demanded of the condemned…and what is hoped the judge will grant’ (Simon and Schramm 1999: 33). Repentance does not equal conversion (Ben Zvi 2003: 124–25; Sasson 1990: 24). This can also be read in the way the Ninevites' speech (or thoughts) are expressed in the text. The question format leaves room for doubt (Sasson 1990: 260–61; Trible 1994: 187; Simon and Schramm 1999: 33).
The lack of lexical repetition and fewer references to the city achieve further backgrounding of Nineveh. Even though this passage is substantially longer than the initial three verses, very few phrases are repeated. The city is not referred to as ריע(‘city’); its name appears three times. The only significant repetition, and also a spatial reference, occurs in vv. 8 and 9: הערה וברדמ שיא ובשיו (‘and each one returned from his evil path’) (see Trible 1994: 187; Kamp 2004: 162–63).
16
A variant with God as subject appears in between these two references. The expression ‘return from an evil path’ is of importance for several reasons. First, the phrase does not focus on the city as a whole and on its glory, but on the return and repentance of each of the people, thus shifting to a more humble and decentralized perspective. Secondly, although the reader knows that the people are the Ninevites, the text does not explicitly name the city in these verses, another way of not drawing attention.
17
Or as Trible has put it, ‘after deliverance, the Ninevites disappear’ (1994: 191). Thirdly, the expression is an orientational metaphor, i.e.,
There is a slight variation in the repetition. In v. 8, a distributive construction is used, in v. 9, a plural. This variation, however, does not affect the importance of the repetition.
This may have given rise to the assumption that the text promotes universalism. Jonah then represents a nationalist tendency disagreeing with God's more universal interest and application of mercy. More recent studies reject such readings, classifying them as alien to the text and context of Jonah. They do, however, retain their value as interpretation history (Ml 12.41; Lk. 11.32) (Sasson 1990: 24–25; Simon and Schramm 1999: viii-x). Ben Zvi has read this as ‘a construction of the “foreign” as, to a large extent, Israelitizable, that is, as having the potential to behave as an Israelite, to talk and act as a good Israelite. Thus, it reflects a tendency to use “the other” to confirm the in-group's perspective for an ideal, “Israelitized world”’ (Ben Zvi 2003: 89–90).
Kamp suggests that the verb בוש in this episode has both literal and figurative connotations. He concludes: ‘A “turning back” on one's steps thus changes into a “turning away” from all that is bad’ (2004: 177).
In addition, Jonah 3.5 and following complement the previously discovered notion that powerful Nineveh is
Other scholars oppose this ambiguity. Simon qualifies it as ‘dubious’, arguing that ‘the narrator, in any case, does not call our attention to this latent ambiguity: the moral alteration of the Ninevites is expressed in v. 10 by the verb sh-w-b, not h-f-k’ (Simon and Schramm 1999:29). I would argue the other way around, that the author could have used a clearly destructive verb in the prophecy or sh-w-b, if he intended to speak only about repentance. Yet he selected the ambiguous one. I do agree with Simon and Schramm that the destructive aspect has a stronger connotation especially within the text-external reality in which Nineveh was destroyed and its fate described in other books such as Nahum. The verb's occurrence in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah also evokes a rather destructive outcome (Magonet 1983: 65; Simon and Schramm 1999: 29; Youngblood 2014: 134). Note that a different binyan is used in Genesis (qal).
The form in Jonah 3.4 is unique in the biblical corpus. The root is used 32 times in the niphal formation. Most of these forms occur in combination with ל, expressing what the person or entity changes into. Sometimes the subject is בל (‘heart’). Only three occurrences use the root without additions (Est. 9.1; Job 20.14; and Ps. 32.4). Given the use elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible, it is unlikely that the turning of the Ninevites is presented here as something good. Their repentance is also not followed by an uplifting action of God which could have changed the overall impression and spatial movement.
Indeed, the history of interpretation reads an opposition here, explained in terms of satire, reversal, etc., of the historical reality. See among others, Gitay 1995: 201–206; Youngblood 2014: 134.
To sum up, in Jonah 3 Nineveh is initially presented as Figure, but as soon as the announcement of impending ‘overturning’ is made, the city takes the role of Ground. The initial toward and upward motions change into removing and downward movements. Despite the traditional interpretation of the salvation of Nineveh, the city does not return to its position at the beginning of the story. As for God, he only lifts up the announced evil (v. 10: העדה לע םיהלאה םחניו), not the Ninevites. 22
This is very different from Jonah's journey in the previous chapters, where the prophet goes down into the ship (1.3: הב דריו…ופי דריו) and the fish (2.1: לוגד גד הוהי ןמיו הגות חא עלבל) to be uplifted (2.7: ייח תחמשמ לעתתו) and spitted out again (2.11: הנוי תא אקיו) (e.g., Halpern and Friedman 1980: 80–81; Prinsloo 2013: 14–16). In the case of the Ninevites the countermovement never happens, leaving them defeated, as in the symbolic reading of the city as an evil place defeated. For the latter see, among others, Person 1996: 14; Spronk 1997: 15–16; Ben Zvi 2003: 15, 151; Christensen 2009: 166.
4. God's Space and the City's
The city of Nineveh is the center of attention in Jonah 3, but also a focal space throughout the whole book. 23 Already in the second verse of the first chapter, God mentions the city to Jonah (הונינ לא ךל םוק) (Mills 2012: 124). At that time, Jonah does not visit the city, but separates himself from the place as far as possible, horizontally (vv. 3–4) and thereafter vertically (v. 5, 15). 24 Yet no matter how far Jonah flees, no matter which spatial axis he moves along, God is there. He casts the mighty wind upon the sea, shaking the ship (1.4: םיה לא הלודג חור ליטה הוהיו). And when the sailors throw Jonah overboard into the waters (1.15: והלטיו הנוי תא ואשו םיה לא), God sends a fish to save Jonah from drowning (2:1: גד הוהי ןמיו הנוי תא עלבל לודג). In the fish Jonah prays to God (2.2–10), whereupon God orders the fish to spit out Jonah (2.11). 25
Prinsloo (2013: 12–13) identifies two other focal spaces: (in) the ship and (in) the fish. For Nineveh, he distinguishes between in Nineveh and outside Nineveh. These four spaces roughly coincide with the settings of the four chapters of Jonah.
Sasson 1990: 79; Sutskover 2014: 206–209, 216–17; Prinsloo 2013: 22.
Prinsloo (2013: 22–23) explains this as the result of a difference in focus: ‘The two main characters have diametrically opposing focal points. Jonah's focal point is narrow, restricted to his own country and his own God… Y
Chapters 1 and 2 not only introduce the journey of Jonah spatially, as a series of movements, away and toward again, down and up again, but also as a voyage in a space that is ultimately God's. Jonah may have assumed that God could be escaped by leaving the geographical territory of his worshippers, but the story proves otherwise (Stuart 1988: 450; Prinsloo 2013: 17–18). The borders of God's space go far beyond those of the temple, Jerusalem, or the Promised Land. And thus, Nineveh falls within the divine space as well, that is, under God's control (see also Gen. 10.11; Jonah 3.3). 26 Because of this, the greatness and evil of the city become problems that God has to address, since it affects his space. 27 The city itself, that is urban space as a category, is not the problem. God has allowed humans to build cities from very early on in the biblical narrative (e.g., Gen. 4.17: Cain builds Henoch). 28 The threat consists of those cities developing into greater spaces without divine approval. The prototypical example is Genesis 11, where the people build Babel (vertically), a spatial disruption of the command issued earlier by God to spread over the earth (horizontally) (Van Wolde 1994: 100; Harland 1998: 515, 527). 29 The confusion of languages is a first step in God taking control again over the space. Likewise, Nineveh in the book of Jonah claims too much space (as discussed above), resulting in a divine reaction.
Mills 2012: 125: ‘Presiding over the entire story is the person of the Lord whose scope is depicted as universal, the deity of the nations as well as of the chosen city-state… Within the plot sequence it is God who initiates and controls the movements of the two cities in their various guises. It is the characterization of the deity to act as a facilitator bringing two contested positions to the table of dialogue and allowing them to hear each other… He ensures that Nineveh has the opportunity to hear Jerusalem in its own personal voice.’ See also Sasson 1990: 28. Jonah, at least, should have known that he could not escape ‘the god of heaven, who made the sea and the dry land’ (Jonah 1.9) (Gunn and Fewell 1993: 131; Jeremias 2007: 77).
Prinsloo (2013: 17) considers Nineveh ‘the ultimate meeting point between the divine and human spheres’. Whereas the two spheres touch each other indeed, the spatial movements in the story suggest that this meeting point is no longer at the right location.
Noted by various scholars, although generally evaluated more negatively. See, among others, O'Connor 2008: 18–19.
Both Van Wolde (1994) and Harland (1998) emphasize in their respective analyses the horizontal intention of the city builders (not to be scattered) and its opposition to the initial command of God in Gen. 2 (to scatter). In other studies, scholars mainly focus on the verticality of the building as an expression of godlike ambitions (e.g., Waltke and Fredricks 2001: 161, 176) or as a symbol of power (e.g., Westermann 2003: 728).
The prophecy in Jonah 3.4 is a call to the Ninevites to transform their spatial program, from great (לדנ) to not so great, from near-hubristic to far more humble. The Ninevites move to the background, hoping that God will do so as well (vv. 8–9), thereby avoiding a spatial confrontation. But while the city does indeed turn away (v. 10: הערה םברדמ ובש); God does not give up (part of) his space. Instead, he renounces the planned evil, spatially overlooking the scene again (v. 10: הערה
The only occasion on which the city will reappear is the final conversation between God and Jonah in ch. 4. It is God who introduces the great city (הלודגה ריעה) in the conversation as the passive and unknowing object (ולאמשל ינימי ןיב עדי אל רשא…הוינינ לע) of his care (
The book of Jonah plays with the reader's expectation, alluding to Exod. 32.14 where God renounces another planned evil (ומעל תושעל רבד רשא הערה לע הוהי םחניו). Likewise, at the beginning of ch. 4, Jonah's description of God recalls Exod. 34.6 (לא הוהי םיפא ךרא ןונחו םוחר) (Gunn and Fewell 1993: 138–40). Twice, the similarity in formulation suggests a happy ending for the Ninevites, even though this is never explicitly confirmed by God. Simultaneously, the text invites the reader to keep in mind the omitted part of Exod. 34.6–7: ‘yet he does not remit all punishment, but visits the iniquity of parents upon children and children's children, upon the third and fourth generations’ (הקנו םיעבר לעו םישלש לע םינב ינב לעו םינב לע תובא זוע דקפ הקני אל), exactly as the book of Nahum states. Note that here both aspects of the Exod. 34 verse are quoted (Nah. 1.3; see also Joel 2.13).
In line with Bolin 1995: 109–10: ‘The author and original readers, living in a culture informed by traditions which do not fail to mention Nineveh as a city that no longer exists, would at the end of Jonah not see a loving God who is free to forgive whom he wills, but rather a God who may forgive at will and revoke that forgiveness as well’. Prinsloo (2013: 20) defines God's position as being ‘at-center’, this in contrast to Jonah's.
5. Did God Really save Nineveh?
To return to the initial question—did God save Nineveh?—the spatial analysis suggests that the answer is no. God did not really rescue Nineveh in Jonah 3. The text presents a clear spatial picture of the city that goes from up to down and from toward to away from. The uplifting movement of salvation is lacking in the story. It is God who occupies the space the Ninevites have given up. He controls the size and power of their city.
However, the absence of true rescue does not necessarily imply that God then destroyed the city in Jonah either. God had been displeased with the city's behavior (as Figure) and had sent out a warning. The Ninevites had responded to that in an appropriate manner (turning the city into Ground). As a result, they had eliminated the need to destroy the city. In doing so, the Ninevites brought themselves down; they were subjected to self-destruction. Paradoxically, they saved the city with this action, at least in the storyworld created in the book of Jonah. God's space in that world is all encompassing, with friend and foe moving within the spatial constellation controlled by God.