an antiprophet among the prophets on the

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Vol 39.3 (2015): 353-371 © The Author(s), 2015. Reprints and Permissions:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0309089215577593 http://JSOT.sagepub.com

An Anti-Prophet among the Prophets? On the Relationship of Jonah to Prophecy ANNETTE SCHELLENBERG Evangelisch-Theologische Fakultät, University of Vienna, Universitätsring 1, Vienna 1010, Austria

Abstract Despite the fact that the book of Jonah and its main character are atypical compared to other prophetic books and prophets, the book became one of the Twelve. Taking up insights from Ehud Ben Zvi and others, this article argues that these idiosyncrasies have to do with the self-understanding of the authors/tradents of the book and their ambivalent relationship to the classical prophetic past of ancient Israel. Identifying them as ‘literary prophets’, indebted to the prophetic tradition but at the same time aware of the differences from their classical predecessors, helps explain the ambivalences in the portrayal of Jonah, the interest in meta-prophetic questions, and peculiarities like the literary form of the book and the choice of Nineveh as the city that escaped destruction.

Keywords: Jonah, inter-textual links, meta-prophetic questions, oral prophets, literary prophets, prophetic books, self-understanding of prophets.

A shortened version of this article was presented at the SBL annual meeting in Chicago, 2012. I thank Sarah Shectman for her editorial help.

354 Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39.3 (2015)

Of all the prophetic books, the book of Jonah is the most atypical. Some even describe Jonah as a caricature of a prophet.1 Nonetheless, Jonah found its canonical place among the Prophets. Apparently, the relation-ship of Jonah to prophecy is complex. Taking up the insights of Ehud Ben Zvi and others, I will argue in this article that the complexities of the book of Jonah have to do with the self-understanding of its authors2 and the changes that prophecy3 underwent in ancient Israel. 1. Tensions within the Character of Jonah That the book of Jonah has a complex relationship to prophecy is most evident in its main character: the prophet Jonah. On the one hand, he is portrayed as a prophet in the tradition of Elijah or Jeremiah, and as a prophet who after all is very successful. On the other hand, he is depicted as tragicomic gure, one who does not come close to the earlier prophets.

1. See, e.g., G. Vanoni, Das Buch Jona: Literar- und formkritische Untersuchung (ATSAT, 7; St Ottilien: EOS-Verlag, 1978), p. 151. 2. The plural indicates that this question is not about the concrete author but rather about the milieu in which the book was written and handed down. Most exegetes either do not address the question of the authors of Jonah, or they answer it with a general reference to ‘scribes’; see, e.g., M. Gerhards, Studien zum Jonabuch (Biblisch-theologische Studien, 78; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2006), p. 71. The question is addressed in more detail by K.J. Dell, ‘Reinventing the Wheel: The Shaping of the Book of Jonah’, in J. Barton and D.J. Reimer (eds.), After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1996), pp. 85-101; R. Lux, Jona—Prophet zwischen ‘Ver-weigerung’ und ‘Gehorsam’: Eine erzählanalytische Studie (FRLANT, 162; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1994); and E. Ben Zvi, Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOTSup, 367; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 2003). Dell (‘Reinventing’) emphasizes both the closeness of Jonah to Wisdom literature (and esp. Job) and its (critical) relatedness to prophecy. Lux (Jona) speculates that the author of Jon. might come from ‘den Kreisen d[ies]er späteren Bearbeiter der Esra- und Nehemia-überlieferung’ and ‘der höheren Jerusalemer Priesterschaft’ (p. 208). Ben Zvi (Signs) describes the authors (and readers) of Jon. as ‘Jerusalemite literati’ of Persian Yehud (p. 8, etc.). By pointing to the ‘meta-prophetic character’ of Jonah (pp. 80-98) and under-standing the book as ‘a critical discourse of the literati about themselves’ (pp. 11, 99-115), his thesis is crucial for the present article (see esp. n. 30). 3. Scholars frequently point out that prophecy is a central topic in Jon. Besides Dell and Ben Zvi (see n. 2), see, e.g., J. Blenkinsopp, A History of Prophecy in Israel (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, rev. and enl. edn, 1996), pp. 240-45; R. E. Clements, ‘The Purpose of the Book of Jonah’, in Congress Volume: Edinburgh, 1974 (VTSup, 28; Leiden: Brill, 1975), pp. 16-28; G.I. Emmerson, ‘Another Look at the Book of Jonah’, ExpTim 88 (1976), pp. 86-88; A. LaCocque, The Jonah Complex (Atlanta, GA: John Knox Press, 1981), pp. 13-14; R. Rendtorff, Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 6th edn, 2001), pp. 238-39.

SCHELLENBERG An Anti-Prophet among the Prophets? 355

That Jonah is a ‘prophet’ is never said explicitly in the book. The rst few verses make clear that he is one, though. The book skips any intro-duction of the character of Jonah—probably because ‘Jonah, son of Amittai’ is already known from 2 Kgs 14.25 (see below)—beginning directly with the messenger formula and God’s appointment of Jonah to ‘cry out’ against Nineveh. Though both divine appointments of prophets and oracles against foreign nations are common in the Hebrew Bible, in the story of Jonah two aspects are striking. First, Jonah actually has to go to Nineveh and deliver his message in person (from the continuation of the story we know why: he must give the people of Nineveh a chance to return from their evil ways and with that to change God’s mind). And second, Jonah runs away. Though prophets who argue with God about their appointments because they feel unable to meet God’s expectations are not unusual in the Hebrew Bible (see, e.g., Moses and Jeremiah), Jonah’s reaction is exceptional, as he does not argue at all but simply absconds. The scene on the ship corroborates Jonah’s status as an anti-hero4 and a complex character. While the sailors cry to their gods, Jonah ‘sleeps’ (1.5).5 Even when asked by the captain, he does not call to YHWH. Instead, he starts talking about God, and suddenly sounds very pious (1.9). And then Jonah even asks the sailors to throw him into the sea (1.12). Though he is not willing to obey God’s calling or even speak with God, he is willing to sacri ce his life. After he is swallowed by a sh, Jonah continues to react in unusual ways. Though praying prophets are not remarkable per se, Jonah’s psalm of thanksgiving comes as a surprise—not least because it is spoken at a moment when Jonah is not yet rescued. Furthermore, the closing sentence of his prayer, ‘deliverance belongs to YHWH’, is in accordance neither with his refusal to call on God for help nor with his later anger over God’s deliverance of Nineveh. Many scholars have therefore assumed that the psalm is secondary.6 This solution might be too easy,

4. On the characterization of Jonah as an ‘anti-hero’ see Dell, ‘Reinventing’, p. 89; LaCocque, Jonah Complex, p. 37; D. Marcus, From Balaam to Jonah: Anti-prophetic Satire in the Hebrew Bible (BJS, 301; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), p. 96. 5. In Hebrew, this sleep is described with the verb (in the niphal) of the root (see also the noun ) which is often used to describe an especially deep or extra-ordinary sleep (e.g. Gen. 2.21; 1 Sam. 26.12). For a prophet, who should be especially clear-sighted, such a deep sleep is inappropriate (see Isa. 29.10). 6. See, e.g., J. Jeremias, ‘Der Psalm des Jona (Jona 2,3-10)’, in M. Bauks, K. Liess, and P. Riede (eds.), Was ist der Mensch, dass du seiner gedenkst? (Psalm 8,5): Aspekte


though7—after all, Jonah makes pious statements in other places in the book as well (1.9; 4.2). In the second part of the book, Jonah is initially depicted as an obedient servant of YHWH—though only brie y. Asked by God a second time, he goes to Nineveh and proclaims the city’s doom: ‘Forty days more, and Nineveh shall be overthrown ( )!’ (3.4). What is striking at this point is that Jonah does not do anything to avert the destruction of Nineveh. He neither attempts to convince the people of Nineveh to turn from their evil ways, nor does he make an effort to convince God to change God’s mind. Both voids are conspicuous—and this not only because other prophets acted differently. Through the choice of the verb niphal, the text makes this void most obvious. First, this verb recalls the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, as this is the context in which it is most frequently used in the Hebrew Bible (see Gen. 19.21, 25, 29; Deut. 29.22; Jer. 20.16; Amos 4.11; Lam. 4.6). This allusion evokes the intercession of Abraham, who tried to save Sodom by arguing with God (see Gen. 18). Second, the verb can also describe a change for the better (see esp. 1 Sam. 10.6, 9, about the divine change of Saul’s heart).8 This is exactly what the people of Nineveh do: they turn from their evil ways, hoping for God’s mercy (see 3.5-9). Jonah, however, was not involved in this turning. Nevertheless, the reaction of the people of Nineveh con rms him as a successful prophet: his message is heard and Nineveh brought back to God. That Jonah indeed is a rather strange prophet becomes most clear in his reaction to God’s mercy toward Nineveh. Instead of being glad, Jonah is angry—because he pities himself. Quoting the mercy formula (see Exod. 34.6-7), in 4.2 he explains that he did not want to go to Nineveh because

einer theologischen Anthropologie; Festschrift für Bernd Janowski zum 65. Geburtstag (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2008), pp. 203-14. 7. That the psalm of Jonah was part of Jonah from the beginning is argued, e.g., by J.S. Ackerman, ‘Satire and Symbolism in the Song of Jonah’, in B. Halpern and J.D. Levenson (eds.), Traditions in Transformation: Turning Points in Biblical Faith (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1981), pp. 213-46 (213-15); Gerhards, Studien, pp. 14-26. 8. See Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 21-24; T.M. Bolin, Freedom beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re-Examined (JSOTSup, 236; Shef eld: Shef eld Academic Press, 1997), pp. 125-26; R.B. Coote, Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology (Phila-delphia: Fortress Press, 1981), p. 132; Y. Gitai, ‘Jonah: The Prophecy of Antirhetoric’, in A.B. Beck et al. (eds.), Fortunate the Eyes That See: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Seventieth Birthday (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 197-206 (201-203).


from the very beginning he knew that God would be merciful and ‘ready to relent from punishing’ ( , see Joel 2.13). Jonah’s primary interest is neither the merciful nature of God nor the fortune of Nineveh. First and foremost he is concerned with himself, namely, with his role as a prophet who occupies a dif cult position between divine appointment and divine mercy. As with his initial reluctance to accept God’s call, the depiction of Jonah at the end of the book is reminiscent of earlier prophets, and in a way that sheds a negative light on him. Like Elijah (see 1 Kgs 19.4), sitting under a tree, Jonah expresses his wish to die (see Jonah 4.3, 8). His reasons for this wish could not be more different from Elijah’s, though. Elijah was ghting with Jezebel and the priests of Baal and wanted to die because he did not feel adequate to this dif cult task. Jonah, however, wants to die rst because Nineveh was not destroyed, despite his proph-ecy, and second because the ricinus plant does not provide shade for him any longer—indeed, he is a rather ridiculous prophet,9 or at least one who does not live up to his predecessors.10 The ambivalence in the portrayal of Jonah raises the question of the intentions of the authors of the book. As Jonah is depicted as a prophet and his weaknesses largely become apparent in comparison with earlier prophets, we can assume that his portrayal has something to do with the authors’ understanding of prophecy. 2. The Book of Jonah in an Inter-textual Web of Meta-prophetic Statements Beyond the portrayal of Jonah, there are additional indications that the authors of the book were indeed interested in the phenomenon of prophecy. In particular, there are several inter-textual links to other

9. Thus the judgment of G. von Rad, Theologie des Alten Testaments: Band 2, Die Theologie der prophetischen Überlieferungen Israels (Munich: Kaiser Verlag, 9th edn, 1987 [1960]), p. 302 (English: Old Testament Theology. II. The Theology of Israel’s Prophetic Traditions [trans. D.M.G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1965], p. 291). 10. Scholars interpret the characterization of Jonah through the reminiscences of other prophets differently; see, e.g., Rendtorff, Einführung, pp. 238-39 (despite all the differ-ences, Jonah remains a prophet); Dell, ‘Reinventing’, pp. 88-90 (Jonah is an anti-hero); P. Weimar, Eine Geschichte voller Überraschungen: Annäherungen an die Jonaerzählung (SBS, 217; Stuttgart: Verlag katholisches Bibelwerk, 2009), pp. 166-74 (Jonah’s situation is depicted as even more hopeless than Elijah’s); Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 87-90 (through Jonah’s characterization, the authors ‘raise the very basic question of the necessary, minimal attributes that a prophet of the monarchic past must have had’; p. 89).


books11 that point in this direction. As usual with such links, it is often hard to decide whether they are conscious, and if so, in which direction they go. For example, though there is no doubt that there are links between the book of Jonah and the book of Joel,12 scholars explain them very differently. A majority assumes that the book of Jonah is reacting to the book of Joel,13 but the evidence for this argument is not entirely clear.14 Hence, other theories explain the links either the other way around15 or by a common redaction of both books.16 In our context, these details do not matter, as the high frequency of inter-textual links through-out the book of Jonah suggests that at least some of them must go back to its authors. This is interesting, as it indicates that they were learned scribes, people who knew and interpreted older traditions. And there is more: A closer look at these links shows that many of them deal with meta-prophetic17 questions, that is, questions that are related not (only) to prophetic topics but to the phenomenon of prophecy as such. We have already discussed the rst group of such links, namely the allusions to older prophets through which Jonah is depicted as an anti-hero.

11. See the overviews by J. Magonet, Form and Meaning: Studies in Literary Techniques in the Book of Jonah (Shef eld: Almond Press, 1983), pp. 65-84; Vanoni, Buch, pp. 125-48. 12. With the mercy formula and the motifs of penitence with fasting and tearing one’s clothes, and the question ‘who knows?’ (see Joel 2.12-14), some of these links are very close. And there are others; for example, the question of whether YHWH’s mercy applies only to the Israelites (thus Joel) or to all the nations (thus Jonah). 13. See, e.g., J. Jeremias, Die Propheten Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD, 24/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), p. 107; H.C.P. Kim, ‘Jonah Read Inter-textually’, JBL 126 (2007), pp. 497-528 (525-26); A. Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölf-prophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse (BZAW, 260; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 1998), pp. 287-89; H.W. Wolff, Studien zur Prophetie: Probleme und Erträge (TB, 76; Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1987), pp. 68-71. 14. Thus, rightly, Dell, ‘Reinventing’, p. 87 n. 7. See also T.B. Dozeman, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Yahweh’s Gracious and Compassionate Character’, JBL 108 (1989), pp. 207-23, who shows that both books can be read as interpretations of one another. 15. See, e.g., Bolin, Freedom, pp. 169-72; Magonet, Form, pp. 77-79. 16. See J. Wöhrle, Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW, 389; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2008), pp. 402-403. 17. The term ‘meta-prophetic’ was rst applied to Jonah by Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 11, 80-98. See further E. Ben Zvi, ‘Jonah 4:11 and the Metaprophetic Character of the Book of Jonah’, JHS 9 (2009), article 5, pp. 1-13, available online at http://www.jhsonline.org/ Articles/article_107.pdf.


The second group of such meta-prophetic links centers on the question of whether or not God is bound to God’s prophecies.18 Deuteronomy 18 makes clear that this is not only a theological but also a meta-prophetic question. According to this text, every prophet whose prophecy does not come true must be killed (Deut. 18.20, 22). The book of Jonah does not indicate that Jonah feared for his life because his prophecy about Nineveh did not come true. Nonetheless, there is no doubt that Jonah’s anger with God’s sparing of Nineveh is related to his prophetic of ce. Jonah himself makes this connection when he explains that he did not want to prophesy against Nineveh because he knew from the very beginning that God would be merciful and relent from punishment (see 4.2). Along these lines, Jonah’s wish for death could be interpreted as the reaction of a prophet whose professional credibility was jeopardized.19 More directly than to Deuteronomy 18, the book of Jonah is connected to passages that deal with the possibility of ‘returning/turning back’ ( ). This idea is particularly important in Jeremiah, as a result of Deuterono-mistic in uence. Again and again this book stresses that YHWH can ‘regret’ a disaster, change his mind, and not ful ll a previously announced prophecy of doom if people turn from their evil ways (with

, niphal, see Jer. 18.8; 26.3, 13, 19; 42.10, as well as Joel 2.13-14; with other verbs see further Jer. 36.3; Ezek. 18.21-23, 27-28; 33.11, 19). Among these statements, Jer. 18.7-8 is particularly interesting, as it reads like a short version of Jonah. Whether or not the authors of Jonah knew the Jeremiah passage, it is noteworthy that in their narrative version they (1) address the feelings of the prophet and (2) choose Nineveh as an example. Both these points will be important when we ask about the self-understanding of the authors of the book of Jonah (see below).

18. On the following, see Blenkinsopp, History, pp. 243-45; Clements, ‘Purpose’, pp. 21-28; T. Krüger, ‘Literarisches Wachstum und theologische Diskussion im Jona-Buch’, in Kritische Weisheit: Studien zur weisheitlichen Traditionskritik im Alten Testament (Zurich: Pano Verlag, 1997), pp. 41-65 (52-59). 19. That Jonah could indeed be understood as a false prophet is re ected in several early Jewish and Christian receptions of Jonah; see Bolin, Freedom, pp. 17-18, 24; B. Ego, ‘The Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction: A Coherent Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Re ected in the Aggada’, in P.L. Redditt and A. Schart (eds.), Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW, 325; Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2003), pp. 155-64; A. Ferreiro, The Twelve Prophets (Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, Old Testament, 14; Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), pp. 129-30, 146-47; M. Gerhards, ‘Jona/Jonabuch’, wibilex (2008), pp. 1-34, 19-20, available online at http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/ stichwort/22740/.


First, however, we need to consider the last group of inter-textual links in the book of Jonah, namely the connections to 2 Kings 14 and Tobit 14, through which there are further connections to Amos and Nahum. 2 Kings 14 and Tobit 14 are the only other chapters from the (canonical and deuterocanonical) Old Testament that mention Jonah.20 Interestingly, both these texts deal with a meta-prophetic question, namely the question of whether or not an earlier prophet was correct. In the case of Tobit, the question is asked with regard to the prediction of the fall of Nineveh. The two versions that contain the relevant passage connect this prophecy with different prophets: the longer and probably older version (GII) with Nahum, the shorter and probably younger version (GI) with Jonah. More interesting than this difference (as, indeed, both prophets predicted the fall of Nineveh) is (1) that the text re ects a dispute over the question of whether the prophecy of the fall of Nineveh is valid, and (2) that this dispute goes back to a tension within the canonical Hebrew Bible itself. Speci cally, the book of Jonah, whose gist is that, despite Jonah’s announcement, in the end God is merciful and relents from destroying Nineveh, stands in tension with the book of Nahum, which reveals how God moves against Nineveh without mercy (see also Zeph. 2.13-14). In this controversy, the book of Tobit takes sides against the book of Jonah, which is not surprising, as Nineveh indeed was destroyed. The whole controversy, however, shows that the position of the book of Jonah could easily be challenged. Unlike Tobit 14, 2 Kings 14 is probably older than the book of Jonah. Hence, most scholars assume that the authors of the book of Jonah named their prophet after the Jonah of 2 Kings 14.21 And indeed, the two share not only a name but also a tendency toward nationalism and connections with the book of Amos. Let us start with the nationalism of the Jonah of 2 Kings 14, which brings us straight into the meta-prophetic discourse that this section is about. The term ‘national’ prophet is apt, as according to 2 Kgs 14.25 Jonah predicted the success of his king, Jeroboam II. This is striking, not least as the verse immediately before states that Jeroboam ‘did what was evil in the sight of the YHWH’. Several decades ago, Frank Crüsemann convincingly argued that this discrepancy is best explained through the situation of the exile, during which the Deuteronomists could

20. On the reception of Jonah in Tobit, see Ego, ‘Repentance’, pp. 156-58. 21. See, e.g., Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 43-47, 90-91. For a different perspective, see Weimar, Geschichte, pp. 14-16, who questions whether the book of Jonah presupposes 2 Kgs 14.25.


not bear Amos’s prophecy of Israel’s total destruction (Amos 8.2).22 As Amos prophesied during the reign of Jeroboam II, the Deuteronomists could contradict him here through the mouth of another prophet, namely Jonah. And they did so not only with v. 25 and the statement that Jero-boam would restore the border of Israel, but also with v. 27: ‘But YHWH had not said that he would blot out the name of Israel from under heaven, so he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam son of Joash’. That all this is indeed directed against Amos is corroborated with the geographical description ‘from Lebo-hamath as far as the Sea of the Arabah’.23 This phrase, used in 2 Kgs 14.25 to describe the territory that Jeroboam would restore according to the word of God spoken through Jonah, is more or less identical with a phrase in Amos 6.14—where it is used to describe the territory in which Israel will be oppressed. All of this suggests that the authors of the book of Jonah might also have been interested in the book of Amos. Perhaps they made Jonah the main character of their book not only because they wanted to criticize a national prophet,24 but also because they wanted to engage in a contro-versy concerning the book of Amos. There are indeed several links between the book of Jonah and the book of Amos.25 Both texts address the question of whether God’s mercy and a new beginning are possible, and both do so by employing the words ‘perhaps’ ( ; see Amos 5.15; Jonah 1.6) and ‘relent’ ( niphal; see Amos 7.3, 6; Jonah 3.9-10; 4.2). In this question, the book of Jonah clearly argues against the bulk of the book of Amos—and with that it is in line with its latest additions.26 Even more striking in the context of our question is Amos 3.7-8 and the realization

22. See F. Crüsemann, ‘Kritik an Amos im Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Erwägungen zu 2. Könige 14,27’, in H.W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag (Munich: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1971), pp. 57-63. 23. Crüsemann does not mention this link; but see Coote, Amos, pp. 88, 130. 24. Jonah’s nationalism becomes obvious with 1.9, where Jonah proudly introduces himself as a ‘Hebrew’. Probably it is also re ected in his anger about God’s mercy toward a foreign city. Though some scholars doubt that this aspect plays a role, at least it is clear that the book depicts a contrast between the un-pious Jonah and the pious ‘gentiles’. In this contrast, the perspective of the book of Jonah is more ‘universal’ or ‘inclusive’, whereas the perspective of the character of Jonah is ‘particular’ (at least in the sense that he is mainly concerned about himself). 25. Most scholars do not pay attention to those links; but see Coote, Amos, pp. 129-34; Weimar, Geschichte, pp. 216-22, 240. 26. Building on this observation, Coote, Amos, pp. 129-34, argues that the book of Jonah ‘is essentially a midrash on Amos C’, i.e. the book of Amos in its last edition.


that the book of Jonah can be read as a narrative exegesis of these two verses’ meta-prophetic statements on the role of prophets (‘The Lord YHWH has spoken, who can but prophesy?’) and the role of God (‘Surely the Lord YHWH does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets’). As mentioned above, it is often hard to tell whether inter-textual links such as the ones discussed in this section were created on purpose. However, even if the authors of the book of Jonah were not aware of all of these links—as they certainly were not in the case of the book of Tobit, which was written after the book of Jonah—it is nevertheless striking that many of them are meta-prophetic in character. This has to do with the book of Jonah, or more precisely with its authors, who critically and intensively re ected on the prophetic of ce. 3. A Prophetic Didactic Narrative and the Self-Understanding of the Authors of the Book of Jonah In the remainder of this article, we must therefore ask speci cally about the authors of the book of Jonah and their self-understanding. Why did they re ect so intensively on the prophetic of ce? Did they understand themselves not as prophets but rather as anti-prophets and critics of prophecy?27 Was the canonization of the book of Jonah as part of the Prophets a misunderstanding?28 Or are the authors of Jonah those ‘literati’ in postexilic Jerusalem who understood themselves as ‘brokers of the divine instruction contained in the [older] texts’?29 In my view, this last thesis, argued by Ben Zvi, is quite convincing30 but needs to be modi ed

27. Thus, e.g., Blenkinsopp, History, p. 242, who describes the book of Jonah as ‘a sapiential critique of prophecy’ (later, however, he also states that ‘it pioneers a new understanding of the prophetic of ce’; p. 245). On different possibilities for understanding Jonah as a criticism of prophecy, also see Dell, ‘Reinventing’, pp. 92, 95-96 (who later speaks about ‘critique of earlier prophecy from within prophetic circles’; p. 100). Marcus, Balaam, pp. 93-159, understands Jonah as an anti-prophetic satire. In his view, the book does not criticize prophecy in general; rather ‘Jonah is satirized for behavior thought to be unbecoming to a prophet’ (p. 158). 28. Thus A. Weiser, Das Buch der zwölf Kleinen Propheten I (ATD, 24/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 4th edn, 1963), p. 216, who argues that ‘das Jonabuch literarisch gesehen nicht zur prophetischen Literatur zu rechnen ist’. 29. Ben Zvi, Signs, p. 106. 30. The present article takes up many insights from Ben Zvi’s book (Signs), mainly from Chapter 6 (pp. 80-98) and Chapter 7 (pp. 99-115). Under the title ‘Atypicality and the meta-prophetic character of the Book of Jonah’ in Chapter 6, Ben Zvi discusses


with regard to the authors’ relationship to prophecy. To me, it is not enough merely to identify them as ‘literati’.31 Rather, they are ‘literary prophets’ (‘literarische Propheten’), and as such prophets of some sort themselves.32 All the observations discussed so far t perfectly with this thesis: the canonization of the book of Jonah among the Prophets, its

several of the points (such as similarities to and differences from other prophetic books; characterization of Jonah; links to 2 Kgs 14; destruction of Nineveh) addressed above. He concludes that Jonah is a ‘prophetic book that deals with or is even devoted to issues that are of relevance for the understanding of the messages of other prophetic books’ (p. 85). Under the title ‘Jonah, the Jerusalemite literati and their image of themselves’ in Chapter 7, he then argues that ‘the book of Jonah re ects and carries a message of inner re ection, and to some extent critical self-appraisal of the group within which and for which this book was written’ (pp. 99-100). Ben Zvi’s thesis was taken up by D.V. Edelman, ‘Jonah among the Twelve in the MT: The Triumph of Torah over Prophecy’, in D.V. Edelman and E. Ben Zvi (eds.), The Production of Prophecy: Constructing Prophecy and Prophets in Yehud (London: Equinox, 2009), pp. 150-67, who argues that Jonah ‘involves the reader or hearer directly in considering the divine nature and will revealed in prophetic proclamations and our ability to understand both via Torah/Tanak’ (p. 163). 31. So far, I am not convinced by Ben Zvi’s thesis that ‘it is very unlikely that there were multiple…groups of literati in post-monarchic Judah’ but more likely just one ‘single group of scribes who shared, for the most part, a common, set curriculum’ (E. Ben Zvi, ‘Towards an Integrative Study of the Production of Authoritative Books in Ancient Israel’, in Edelman and Ben Zvi [eds.], The Production of Prophecy, pp. 15-28 [16]). The books that were edited in post-exilic Judah are so diverse that Ben Zvi can maintain his thesis only by stressing ‘that a multiplicity of ideological viewpoints and voices was a hallmark of the literary works that emerged, which re ected the discourse of the period’ (p. 17). If we look at all literary works together, this is absolutely true. However, not all books re ect the same variety of viewpoints, but different books and groups of books are dominated by different ideologies/theologies. Thus, in my view, it is more likely that there were indeed different groups of ‘literati’, be it that they were af liated with different institutions, be it that they belonged to different ‘schools of thoughts’. (On a different level, of course, Ben Zvi still is right: in that all the ‘literati’ belonged to the same ‘scribal guild’, they indeed constituted a group, and their writings leave no doubt that the different subgroups interacted with each other.) 32. Identifying the authors of the book of Jonah not only as ‘literati’ but as ‘literary prophets’ has consequences for the interpretation of the ambivalences in the book. Ben Zvi clearly distinguishes between the authors’ criticism of Jonah in his role as an oral prophet (see Signs, pp. 102-106) and their identi cation with Jonah in his role as a scribe (see Signs, pp. 107-15). In my view, the situation is even more complex, as the authors of the book also identi ed with Jonah in the role of a prophet. See in this direction also Dell, ‘Reinventing’, p. 101, who argues that Jonah was written ‘to legitimate a later com-munity…[and]…to show that prophecy, despite all its failings, is still a powerful force for the in uencing of ideologies, a genre not on the wane but nding new literary expression in its understanding of and critique of what has gone before.’


meta-prophetic character, and the inter-textual links that are typical of literary prophets. Moreover, there are more peculiarities in the book that can be interpreted as re ections of scribes who were indebted to the prophetic tradition but at the same time were aware of the differences from their classical predecessors. In order to test this thesis and ask how well it explains the peculiarities just mentioned, we rst need to recapitulate what we know about these literary prophets.33 In essence, our knowledge is limited to what can be deduced from the prophetic books. These books show that in ancient Israel the words of prophets were treated differently than they were in other ancient Near Eastern cultures: they were not only written down to be sent to the addressee (as in Mari) or recorded in the royal archive (as in Assyria), but later were interpreted with additional words, so that over time they grew into (sometimes very long) prophetic books. Different generations of scholars have described those who were responsible for these developments with different names: students, followers, redactors, and literary prophets. Though many questions about their work are heavily disputed, today most scholars agree that those successors of the original prophets played a crucial role in the formation of the prophetic books. Hence, they are not seen as second-class epigones anymore but rather as rst-class theologians. To express the idea that the writings of these theologians are as important as the words of the original prophets, scholars have coined terms such as ‘prophetic exegesis of the prophets’ (‘Prophetische Prophetenauslegung’) and ‘tradent prophecy’ (‘Tradenten-prophetie’).34 More common (though only in German) is the term ‘literary prophecy’,35 which has the advantage of referring not only to redactional

33. On the following, see A. Schellenberg, ‘A “lying pen of the scribes” (Jer 8:8)? Orality and Writing in the Formation of Prophetic Books’, in A. Weissenrieder and R.B. Coote (eds.), The Interface of Orality and Writing: Speaking, Seeing, Writing in the Shaping of New Genres (WUNT, 260; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), pp. 285-309. 34. See O.H. Steck, Die Prophetenbücher und ihr theologisches Zeugnis (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996), pp. 125ff., 166ff. (English: The Prophetic Books and their Theo-logical Witness [trans. James D. Nogalski; St Louis, MI: Chalice Press, 2000], pp. 115ff., 152ff.). 35. In English, ‘literary prophecy/literary prophet’ is more commonly a translation of the German ‘Schriftprophetie/Schriftprophet’. For a use in the sense of German ‘literarische Prophetie/literarischer Prophet’ (i.e. written prophecy/written prophet), see, e.g., M. Nissinen, ‘What Is Prophecy? An Ancient Near Eastern Perspective’, in J. Kaltner and L. Stulman (eds.), Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East; Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon (London: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 17-37 (30).


additions to older prophetic words but also to texts that originated without an original oral prophet (as discussed, e.g., in the cases of Jonah, Joel, and Malachi). How those literary prophets understood themselves is a question about which one can only speculate. Though initially they were understood as simple collectors or clumsy distorters of the original words of prophets, today scholars often stress their close af nity with the original prophets. And indeed, in the prophetic books of the Old Testament no distinction is made between the words of the original prophets and the later redactors. Nonetheless, there are fundamental differences between prophets like Amos and Jeremiah, who—if we can trust the depictions in their books—frequently came into con ict with the authorities, and the literary prophets, of whom we mainly know that they were part of the elite, namely people who were literate and well-versed in the tradition. Beyond this socio-logical difference lies another one, which at its core is theological. A prophet proclaiming a word he received from God is not the same as a redactor writing as if this prophet received an additional word of God. Leaving the question of pseudepigraphy aside—it is a phenomenon that needs to be discussed on its own—there are two aspects to this difference: one of orality and writing, and one of whether or not a word originated with God. Only the second aspect matters theologically, and the rst aspect must not be confused with it. Just as an oral prophet could just pretend or hallucinate that God spoke through him, a redactor writing down words could have had a prophetic experience or have thought he had one. In both cases, the alternatives evade a solution using empirical methods or exegetical tools. Nonetheless, the question is relevant. This is re ected not only in passages like Deuteronomy 18 that address the question of true and false prophecy, but also in the many additions (‘Fortschreibungen’) of literary prophets that re ect efforts to explain discrepancies between older prophecies and the actual course of events. Earlier in this article, we saw that the authors of the book of Jonah were interested in this question as well. In revealing that God can change God’s mind—and this (against Amos) even without telling one of the prophets ahead of time—they implicitly make the point that it is not necessarily the prophets who are to be blamed for unful lled prophecies. Beyond this meta-prophetic message, the book of Jonah contains more peculiarities that can be explained as re ections of the self-understanding of scribes of prophetic books. Interestingly, all these peculiarities point in


the same direction: that those literary prophets, or more concretely, the authors of the book of Jonah, understood themselves as part of the prophetic tradition (i.e. as prophets of some kind) but were aware not only of continuity but also of discontinuity with the classical prophetic past. A rst peculiarity that needs to be considered in this context is the literary form of the book of Jonah.36 Through its opening with the mes-senger formula and through other signals it recalls prophetic books and prophetic narratives; at the same time, however, there are striking differ-ences. Unlike all the other prophetic books, the book of Jonah does not claim to contain a collection of divine oracles.37 As a report about the adventures of the prophet Jonah (including his dialogues with God), it rather evokes the stories about Elijah and other prophets, about whom we have only narrations, not collections of their words. However, whereas those other prophetic narratives are part of a larger literary work (namely, the Deuteronomistic History), Jonah is a book on its own. And unlike the prophetic narratives from Samuel and Kings, the narration of Jonah is not embedded in a historical frame.38 On the contrary, fairy-tale motifs39 signal that it is not a report about actual events but rather a didactic narrative.40 It is fair to assume that the choice of this literary form for the book of Jonah is not a coincidence but has to do with the interests of its authors, be it conscious or not. Depending on how one accentuates the similarities to and differences from the classical prophetic books and narratives, one may delineate this interest differently: Did the authors of the book of Jonah want to demonstrate that a book can also be ‘prophetic’ even if it does not trace back to oral oracles but originates instead in writing? Or did they want to signal (with the fairy-tale motifs) that literary prophecy is ctitious, that is, it does not derive from divine inspiration? Again we are confronted with the question of the self-understanding of those who wrote the book of Jonah. Did they understand themselves as ‘fairy-tale tellers’, that is, as people whose messages no

36. On the ‘außergewöhnliche Charakter des Jonabuches im Dodekrapropheton’, see Lux, Jona, p. 13 with n. 11; Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 80-85. 37. Strikingly, not even the prediction of the fall of Nineveh (see 3.4), the only divine oracle of Jonah, is introduced with the messenger formula. 38. See Wolff, Studien, p. 49; Lux, Jona, p. 34; E. Zenger, ‘Das Buch Jona’, in Einleitung in das Alte Testament (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 3rd edn, 1998), pp. 497-503 (498). 39. See Zenger, Einleitung, p. 498. 40. In this regard the book of Jonah resembles the book of Job; see Dell, ‘Reinvent-ing’, p. 97. On the question of the genre of the book, see Lux, Jona, pp. 48-56.


longer have the divine authority of the classical prophets? Or on the contrary, did they want to demonstrate that oral prophets have their limitations as well, and written prophetic books might understand God better than they do? At this point a second peculiarity of the book of Jonah requires our attention: the ambivalent relationship of its authors to the character of Jonah. Previous scholarship has primarily emphasized that the prophet Jonah is portrayed negatively in the book, that its authors distance them-selves from him.41 This is true, but only partially. At the same time, the authors also identify with Jonah.42 This is already indicated in the por-trayal of Jonah, who is not only an anti-hero but in his comical tragedy is also a lovable character. With regard to Nineveh’s turnaround, in some ways he is even depicted as a successful prophet—both in that his prophecy caused the people of Nineveh to turn from their evil ways (see above), and in that historically Nineveh indeed was destroyed (see below). Moreover, we must recall once more that the authors depict Jonah in the style of the classical prophets, though clearly different from them. At the same time, Jonah is similar to Elijah and Jeremiah and funda-mentally different from them—exactly like those who wrote the story about him. It stands to reason that the authors’ criticism of the character of Jonah is some kind of self-criticism.43 Perhaps the character of Jonah was a symbol for the authors that the great prophetic past of Israel was over and their own mission in many regards had become more dif cult.44

41. This aspect is emphasized by Marcus, Balaam, pp. 94-95, 119, 156-58, who concludes that the book of Jonah is an anti-prophetic satire. Similarly Schart, Entstehung, pp. 283-87, who speci cally argues that the satire of Jonah argues against Joel. 42. See Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 100-115. That Jonah is not solely negatively is also emphasized by H. Gese, ‘Jona ben Amittai und das Jonabuch’, TBei 15 (1984), pp. 256-72; Wolff, Studien, pp. 72-76. Pointing to Hos. 7.11, Wolff, however, instead suggests an identi cation of the readers with Jonah; thus also J. Jeremias, Die Reue Gottes: Aspekte alttestamentlicher Gottesvorstellung (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2nd edn, 1997), pp. 98ff.; Lux, Jona, pp. 208-11; Weimar, Geschichte, p. 203. 43. Thus already von Rad, Theologie 2, p. 303 (Theology, p. 292). More recently, Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 113-14, has argued that the book of Jonah parodies not only other prophetic books but, indirectly, also the ‘authors, readers, and brokers of these books. If it raises the problematic character of the communication, and understanding of YHWH’s messages in the case of a learned gure, it cannot but raise the problematic character of the role ful lled by the brokers of divine knowledge who wrote, read and studied prophetic books, that is, of the literati themselves.’ 44. It ts well with this interpretation that part of Jonah’s problem is that, though he knew that God would be merciful toward Nineveh through tradition, he could not predict


Jonah’s wish for death—which is ridiculous in the larger context but which to Jonah himself is quite real— ts very well with this tension between self-criticism and self-pity. Finally, that the authors of the book of Jonah identi ed with Jonah is indicated by the psalm in Jonah 2. As mentioned above, at rst glance this psalm is dif cult to integrate in the overall picture, mainly because of its piety. However, before dismissing the prayer of Jonah as a joke or an ironic play,45 it is worth noting that its last sentence, ‘deliverance belongs to YHWH’ (2.10), is fully consistent with one of the main messages of the book. In the Psalter, we interpret statements like those in Jonah 2 as expressions of deep faith. It is only the tensions in the characterization of Jonah that make them ironic to our ears. Perhaps, however, they are expressions of a deep faith in the book of Jonah, too—namely, the faith of its authors. If so, then the tensions in the character of Jonah have nothing to do with irony (nor with redaction history), but rather re ect the ambivalent relationship of the authors to the character of Jonah. In any case, it is noteworthy that the psalm of Jonah depicts him not only as pious but also as familiar with the tradition: almost every line has one or more parallels in the Psalter.46 At least in this regard, it is clear that the authors of the book of Jonah depicted Jonah as one of their own.47 Finally, from Chronicles (1 Chron. 25.1-3; also 2 Chron. 20.14) and Qumran (11QPsa XXVII.2-11; see also the Psalms pesharim) we know that the composition of songs was considered ‘prophecy’ in post-exilic times48—Jonah’s activity in the belly of the sh proves him such a prophet49 (and is a further argument that the term ‘literary prophet’ is justi ed50).

Nineveh’s sparing in the form of a divine oracle, as God did not inform him about God’s plans ahead of time. Similarly, literary prophets primarily knew about God through studying older writings and less so through direct revelation. 45. Thus, e.g., Ackerman, ‘Satire’, pp. 213-46; Magonet, Form, pp. 52-54. Against such an interpretation, see Bolin, Freedom, pp. 117-18, who argues that the psalm of Jonah ts without tension into the portrayal of Jonah. 46. For an overview, see Ben Zvi, Sign, p. 47 n. 23. 47. See Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 107-109. 48. See T.H. Lim, ‘All these He Composed through Prophecy’, in K. de Troyer and A. Lange (eds.), Prophecy After the Prophets? The Contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Understanding of Biblical and Extra-Biblical Prophecy (Leuven: Peeters, 2009), pp. 61-73. 49. See Gese, ‘Jona’, p. 272. 50. In addition to the texts mentioned above, Sir. 39.1, 6, the pesharim and other texts from Qumran, and some statements in Josephus indicate as well that in postexilic times


At rst glance it seems unlikely that the authors of the book of Jonah should both distance themselves from Jonah and identify with him. However, this tension might be a re ex of their ambivalent attitude to prophecy: insofar as they understood themselves to be prophets of some kind, they identi ed with Jonah; insofar as they felt different from the classical prophets, they dissociated themselves from him. There is a third peculiarity in the book of Jonah that can be explained along these lines: the choice of Nineveh as the city that escaped destruc-tion by turning away from evil.51 That of all cities the authors chose Nineveh is striking, as it brings their book into con ict with the book of Nahum, which was probably written earlier.52 Whereas in the book of Nahum the destruction of Nineveh is predicted and acclaimed, in the book of Jonah one learns that, despite the divine announcement, Nineveh was spared and that this sparing was God’s will. That in the canonical order the book of Jonah comes before the book of Nahum softens this tension only slightly53 (as Tob. 14 and other Jewish texts indicate54). To illustrate

literary and interpretive activities were understood as prophetic or divinely inspired; see L.L. Grabbe, Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh (London: Routledge, 2000), pp. 236-41; Steck, Prophetenbücher, pp. 129-35 (Prophetic Books, pp. 120-25); de Troyer and Lange (eds.), Prophecy After the Prophets? 51. The striking choice of Nineveh is interpreted differently in scholarship. See, e.g., Bolin, Freedom, pp. 120-47 (‘absolute divine freedom capable of forgiveness or destruction’, p. 146); Weimar, Geschichte, pp. 178ff.; Coote, Amos, pp. 132, 134 (‘The Ninevites in the story are ultimately not themselves but the Judahite readers of Jonah’ [p. 134]); Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 14-33 (‘multivocality’ which ‘allows “different” authorities or potentially alternative authorities within the circle of literati to uphold the authority of the same text because of the room left by their respective constructions of the communicator and its message/s’, and thereby ‘furthers a sense of cohesiveness of the social group by these sharing of authoritative texts’ [p. 32]); Ben Zvi, ‘Jonah 4:11’, pp. 2-13 (the authors of the book deliberately ended it with a verse that can be read both as a statement [‘I will not be concerned over Nineveh…’] and as a rhetorical question [‘And should I not be concerned over Nineveh…?’]—‘[T]his double ending is tantamount to a double reading of the prophetic book, one in which Nineveh is destroyed and another in which it is not’ [p. 13]). 52. That it is not a coincidence that the book of Jonah and the book of Nahum both talk about the same city is indicated by both books’ use of the mercy formula (see Jonah 4.2; Nah. 1.3) and other links between them; on these links see Kim, ‘Jonah’, pp. 507-12. On the question of the temporal relationship between the two books, see pp. 523-24 of Kim’s discussion. 53. The tension is most obvious in the LXX, where the book of Nahum follows immediately after the book of Jonah.


the topics of return and divine freedom, the authors of the book of Jonah could easily have chosen another city, even if they wanted to make the point that YHWH’s mercy extends beyond national borders. One cannot escape the impression that they wanted to rebuff the xenophobia of Nahum. But of all prophets, why Nahum, and of all cities, why Nineveh? Unless the book of Jonah is pre-exilic—and almost nobody espouses such an early date—it is clear that the Assyrian threat was far in the past when the book was written. Why did the authors not pick Babylon? After all, the Babylonian threat was closer to their own time, Babylon plays a most prominent role in the Hebrew Bible, and the authors could still have criticized the xenophobia of other prophetic texts (see Isa. 13–14; 21; 47; Jer. 50–51). The question of why Nineveh and not Babylon becomes even more puzzling given that, unlike Babylon, Nineveh was already destroyed at the time the book of Jonah was written. Younger texts indicate that the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE was given symbolic value.55 Hence, it is fair to assume that both the authors and the audience of the book of Jonah knew about it. Why then did they choose Nineveh to tell their story about a spared city? Again, several different interpretations of the evidence are possible. Did the authors choose Nineveh because they wanted to criticize the xenophobia of earlier prophets but did not want to go against the two prophetic giants, Isaiah and Jeremiah? Or did their choice again have to do with self-criticism? Did they want to criticize prophetic xenophobia but at the same time acknowledge that their own book was not beyond criticism either? None of these questions can be answered de nitively. Even so, it remains striking that the question of the self-understanding of the authors of the book of Jonah repeatedly leads to an overlap of self-con dence and self-criticism, and a tension between awareness of being in the tradition

54. See Ego, ‘Repentance’, pp. 155-64, who investigates Jewish texts that re ect the tension between the book of Jonah and the book of Nahum. A typical example is the beginning of Nahum in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, where it is explained that after some time the people of Nineveh started to sin again; see Ego, ‘Repentance’, p. 160; Kim, ‘Jonah’, p. 518 n. 55. 55. For the Greek sources, see Bolin, Freedom, pp. 135-40; for cuneiform sources, see G. Baumann, ‘Die Eroberung Ninives bei Nahum und in den neubabylonischen Texten: Ein Motivvergleich’, in J.F. Diehl, R. Heitzenröder, and M. Witte (eds.), ‘Einen Altar von Erde mache mir....’: Festschrift für Diethelm Conrad zu seinem 70. Geburtstag (Kleine Arbeiten zum Alten und Neuen Testament, 4/5; Waltrop: Spenner, 2003), pp. 5-19; M.B. Dick, ‘Nineveh as Symbol’, paper presented at the SBL Annual Meeting, Atlanta, GA, November 2010.


of earlier prophecy and awareness of being different from them. Differ-ences and contradictions between different prophetic books show that the group of literary prophets was not homogeneous.56 Hence, we must be careful with generalizations. Nonetheless, it seems likely that the ambiva-lent feelings re ected in the book of Jonah are not speci c to the authors of this book only, but were typical of literary prophets in general. At least it is clear that these ambivalent feelings re ected in the book of Jonah have to do with the situation of literary prophets, those latecomers in the history of ancient Israelite prophecy, who stood in the tradition of earlier prophets but so clearly were different from them.57

56. See Schellenberg, ‘Lying Pen’, pp. 291, 302 n. 64. 57. According to a reconstruction by R.E. Fuller, the Qumran-manuscript 4QXIIa preserved a version of the book of the Twelve that ended with the book of Jonah. In view of the insights presented in the present study, such a scroll ending with Jonah would be no surprise. Rather, it makes good sense that the corpus propheticum closed with a meta-prophetic book that re ected the changes within Israelite prophecy; see Ben Zvi, Signs, pp. 85-86. Unfortunately, the reconstruction by Fuller is very hypothetical and it is unclear whether did Jonah indeed follow after Malachi. See in detail P. Guillaume, ‘The Unlikely Malachi–Jonah Sequence (4QXIIa)’, JHS 7 (2007), article 15, pp. 1-10, available online at http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_76.pdf.

an antiprophet among the prophets on the

Documents