Jonah: A Commentary by Susan Niditch (review)

Reviewed by: Jonah: A Commentary by Susan Niditch Steven L. McKenzie susan niditch, Jonah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2023). Pp. xxi + 161. 59. The prestigious Hermeneia series is known for its distinguished authors, and Susan Niditch certainly fits the bill. This volume continues the trajectory for which N. is renowned with its focus on folklore as it informs the story of Jonah and its reception. Following the Hermeneia format, the volume offers a new translation, copious textual notes, and commentary, along with detailed footnotes and an extensive bibliography. Its introduction discusses Jonah's structure, the stability of its text, literary use of motifs, Jonah in the Book of the Twelve, Jonah's character as prophet compared with other prophets, personal religion, and genre. Notably absent are systematic discussions of authorship and date. Niditch structures Jonah and her commentary in seven sections: charge and avoidance (1: 1–3) ; group punishment and mollification (1: 4–16) ; individual punishment, petition, and forgiveness (2: 1–11) ; charge and fulfillment (3: 1–4) ; repentance and forgiveness (3: 5–10) ; anger, accusation, and departure (4: 1–5) ; and mollification, destruction, anger, and stasis (4: 6–11). Niditch's translation repeats English words when possible where Hebrew vocabulary recurs and "attempts to capture in English the syntax and cadences of the Hebrew" (p. 7). The resultant translation is frequently "Yoda-esque" (e. g. , "And trust did the men of Nineveh God, " 3: 5), leading one to wonder whether ancient readers would have perceived the book's language as so irregular. The textual notes discuss the meanings of Hebrew words and phrases and list variants to the MT in ancient manuscripts (esp. those from Wadi Murabbaʻat and Qumran) and versions. N. does not adopt any variant readings but prefers the MT throughout. The commentary is particularly rich in its review of secondary sources and its laying out of alternative interpretations. N. does not routinely feel compelled to decide among them, though she does not shy away from doing so when she thinks the situation calls for it. Each of the seven divisions of the commentary ends with segment on "comparative folklore, and reception. " The portion on reception focuses mostly on Jewish and Christian interpretation of Jonah in literary and artistic appropriations. The longest section of the commentary is the one on Jonah 2. N. seems to take the psalm in that chapter as a separate composition but one that was incorporated by the author of the prose story. Her analysis of the poetry finds very long lines followed by much shorter ones, and she interprets this as a late modification of classical qinah meter. Thus, she identifies the psalm's genre as lament. The treatment of folklore and reception for this section is the longest of the book because of Jonah's sojourn in the fish (a. k. a. whale) for which the book is most famous, and N. links the two in creative and insightful ways. Thus, two mosaics—one Jewish, from the Huqoq synagogue, and one Christian, from the Cathedral of End Page 381 Bishop Theodore in Aquileia—receive special attention for their depictions of Jonah. Citing Rachel Hachlili (Ancient Mosaic Pavements: Themes, Issues, and Trends; Selected Studies Leiden: Brill, 2009), N. observes how the locations of these mosaics (floor vs. sacred paraphernalia) may have reflected their respective functions: for Jews, portrayals of biblical tradition in decorative art furnished the environment for worship, while Christians used such scenes to depict figures of Christ. The Huqoq Jonah, N. suggests, may have been based on Pirqe de Rabbi Eliezer. NT references to Jonah (e. g. , Matt 12: 40–41) cast his stay in the fish as an adumbration of Christ's resurrection and possibly as the episode referred to in 1 Cor 15: 4 as the scriptural foundation of Christian doctrine. The commentary proposes several intriguing interpretations. The problematic clause in 1: 8, typically rendered "tell us on whose account this evil has come upon us, " is often deleted as textually dubious and repetitive (cf. v. 7). N. retains it and suggests a sense of "who has it in for you, " that is, "who has a grudge against you that has the power to create such. . .