Jonah and Historicity II – The Historical Issues
In today’s post, I continue the topic of Jonah’s historicity. In my initial post, I reflected on why the debate is so heated and discussed underlying assumptions about the nature of truth (see post Jonah and Historicity I). Today, I shall address the historical issues proper.
A historic prophet
The naming of Jonah, son of Amittai (Jonah 1:1) points towards a historic account, since he was a historic prophet known from 2 Kings 14:25. Why would an author go to the trouble of picking a historic figure if historicity did not matter to him? Likewise, the mention of Nineveh may also indicate a historic record of an event. Those who treat Jonah as fictitious read it as a kind of parable or didactic tale. Although it is true that parables tend to involve anonymous figures, Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus appeals to the historic figure of Abraham (Luke 16:19-31). Regarding the historic location in Jonah, the parable of the Good Samaritan is also set in a historically recognisable place, the route between Jerusalem and Jericho, known for its exposure to attacks (Luke 10:30).
Although an argument from silence and not conclusive, it is interesting to note that apart from Jonah’s name there is otherwise no anchoring of the events in history (no kings mentioned by name in Israel or Judah, no year of their reign, nor a name for ‘the king of Nineveh’). Compare that to some of the incidents detailed in recognisably historic accounts within the prophetic material giving names and dates (Amos taken to task by Amaziah, the priest of Bethel, during the reign of Jeroboam of Israel – Amos 7:10-13; Jeremiah buying a field from his cousin while Jerusalem is besieged during Zedekiah’s reign – Jer 32:6-15; Haggai encouraging Zerubbabel and Joshua to rebuild the temple post-exile – Haggai 1:12-15).
The size of Nineveh
The city’s size is another reason that creates question marks around the story’s historicity. Nineveh is described as a ‘a three days’ walk’ (Jonah 3:3) and taking the expression as either circumference or diameter makes the place impossibly large compared to the size that we know Nineveh to have been in Jonah’s time. Allen cites Herodotus who estimates a day’s march to be about 17 miles, which makes Nineveh’s circumference or diameter over 50 miles (80km). Assyrian documents and archaeology confirm that the later Nineveh enlarged and made into the capital by Sennacherib was only about 7.5 miles (12km) in diameter, and the city in Jonah’s time was less than 3 miles (5km).[1] Further, the population is given as 120,000 (Jonah 4:11) which again seems extremely large for the historic size of the city. This could point to hyperbole in painting a larger-than-life city.
However, Wiseman, an Assyriologist, suggests that it may be a reference to a three-day visit, where the first day is for arrival, the second day for business and the third for departure. Alternatively, he argues that it may indicate the metropolitan district’s size, so Nineveh and its environs, which would make the size and population more feasible.[2] It could also have meant the time it would take Jonah to walk the length and breadth of it thoroughly, so to speak, and spread the message. Alternatively, the three days could be metaphorical to indicate the overwhelming task Jonah had.
The king of Nineveh
Another expression that casts doubt on the historicity of Jonah for some is ‘the king of Nineveh’. It latently assumes that Nineveh was the capital of Assyria so that the king of the empire would be associated with his most important city. This would be similar to Nahum, where Nineveh effectively represents Assyria. However, Nineveh did not become the capital until around 700 BC, so about half a century after the historic Jonah’s time, though it may have been a royal residence before then. Nor is the king of Assyria referred to anywhere else as ‘the king of Nineveh’. This points to a story for some that is less concerned about the historic realities and paints with a broad-brush stroke.
Stuart on the other hand affirms the historicity of Jonah and points to the precedent of the Canaanite kings in Israel’s early settlement who are variously called the king of a city or region (e.g. Judg 4:2, 17). His closest comparable example is that of ‘Ahab, king of Samaria’ in 1 Kings 21:1, rather than the normal designation ‘the king of Israel’.[3] The parallel with Ahab, however, does not work so well, because Samaria was the capital of Israel in his time while Nineveh was not in Jonah’s time. Samaria also came to be used of the region likely soon after the city was built by Omri (880 BC). By the time of the Assyrian conquest of Israel (722 BC), Samaria, as the name of the region, was so well-established that the Assyrians named their newly conquered province Samerina. Further, neither Assyrian documents, nor the historic accounts of Kings and Chronicles in the Bible refer to the Assyrian monarch as anything other than ‘the king of Assyria’.
Lawrence argues for the historicity of the expression ‘the king of Nineveh’ from a different angle. He describes the weakened state of Assyria at this time with powerful provincial governors in place and suggests that the king may have only been de facto king of Nineveh and its surrounding area.[4]
The plausibility of Nineveh’s repentance
Some doubt whether the Assyrians could have repented at the word of an unknown foreign prophet when there is no record of such a change of heart in Assyrian documents. However, the absence of any mention of this event is not proof as royal annals tended not to include negative aspects of a king’s reign (Kings and Chronicles with their criticism of evil kings are rather unusual in this respect). Further, there may have been a plausible historic context for such repentance. The Assyrian empire was going through a phase of weakness at the beginning of 8th century BC (Jonah’s time), characterised by military and diplomatic losses, uprisings and unrest, coupled with famines, a possible earthquake, and a total solar eclipse.[5] Since such disasters were usually connected to the displeasure of the gods, a call for penitence would have been a logical step to appease whichever god was offended.
Later (Persian) customs?
It is thought that a joint declaration by the king and his nobles (Jonah 3:7) reflects later Persian custom (e.g. Ezra 7:14; Dan 6:17) and so does the inclusion of animals in mourning rites (Jonah 3:8), mentioned, for instance, by Herodotus (IX.24) and Judith 4: 10. If so, then the book reflects the conditions of a late author in the mid-sixth to mid-fourth century who may have projected the customs of his own day, which his audience would have recognised, onto Jonah’s.
While there is no Assyrian evidence for the involvement of animals in rites such as described by Jonah, the paucity of documents from this period does not allow us to determine with certainty whether this was a custom then or not. The inclusion of nobles in the decree may relate to a ritual described by Wiseman who notes that at a time of national crisis (like a solar eclipse), the king sometimes stepped down from his throne and had a substitute king established until the crisis passed. At such a time of interregnum nobles may have been included in the decision, which would explain the situation in Jonah.[6] Alternatively, Lawrence argues that the weakness of the Assyrian king (as mentioned earlier) may explain the inclusion of nobles (provincial governors) who surrounded the king.[7]
In my final post on Jonah’s historicity, I shall reflect on the fish that swallowed Jonah, the literary features of the book and Jesus’ use of Jonah in the NT.
[1] Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976), 176, n.5.
[2] D.J. Wiseman, “Jonah’s Nineveh,” Tyndale Bulletin 30 (1979), 38-39.
[3] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, WBC 31 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1987), 441.
[4] P.J.N. Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles and the Book of Jonah,” Tyndale Bulletin 37 (1986), 121-132 (esp. 131-32).
[5] Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 440, 491-92.
[6] Wiseman, ‘Jonah’s Nineveh’, 47, 51.
[7] Lawrence, “Assyrian Nobles,” 121-132 (esp. 130-32).
If you enjoyed this post, please share it with others.