Abstract
It is not without reason that generations of interpreters have often characterized Jonah in a negative light. This paper argues that the rhetorical workings of Jon. 4:1â11 can be seen as a gaslighting strategy, as the text guides its readers to delegitimize and pathologize the resistant voice of Jonah to elevate yhwhâs universalistic and impartial mercy. Drawing upon research literature in gaslighting studies and discussing how gaslighting can be a helpful lens for analyzing ancient texts, I explore how the text utilizes the voice of yhwh to subject Jonah to a âcrazy-makingâ process by sidestepping the issue, attributing flaws to Jonahâs logic and emotions, and finally silencing the prophet with the deliberate ending in the coda.
In the history of interpreting the book of Jonah, commentators have often portrayed Jonah in a negative light due to his deviation from social expectations and by seemingly disagreeing with yhwh. From ancient readers of Yehud who treated Jonah as a ârunaway servant/slave,â to contemporary commentators depicting him as some type of reluctant âanti-hero,â âanti-prophet,â âanti-Noah,â âanti-Abraham,â âanti-Moses,â âanti-Elijah,â and âanti-Jeremiah,â these recurring negative assessments of Jonah often serve to highlight yhwhâs universalistic love and mercy.1 The prefix of âanti-â has almost become synonymous with Jonah and the story becomes one of the favourite object lessons for modern protestants to teach obedience and submission as one learns to discern divine calling, with Jonah being the negative example of what one should not become.2 By implication, then, Jonah should be an obedient, vocationally submissive, emotionally composed prophet who should submit unreservedly to yhwh.
Korean scholar Chesung Justin Ryu remarks that the established anti-Jonah readings tend to glorify Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, despite its role as a colonizing oppressor who destroyed Israel, âwhile Jonah, a true prophet of Israel who poured out his anger to God over Godâs treatment of Nineveh, has been blamed for his nationalism or particularism.â3 When read critically, the task of Jonah can be compared to asking an âAuschwitz survivorâ to âgo to Berchtesgaden or Berlin carrying Godâs salvation,â4 or (to use an example relevant to my own social location) telling an assaulted student-protestor from the 2019 Hong Kong civic movement to carry the message of hope and forgiveness to the central police station or the legislative council complex. Ryu, drawing on his experience as part of the colonized Korean community, raises a thought-provoking question: âHow do the oppressed hide their anger when they learn that their oppressors and colonizers are saved by their God â the God of the oppressed?â5 For Ryu, therefore, Jonahâs anger and silence in Jon. 4 are legitimate resistance strategies in response to yhwhâs decision to spare Nineveh from punishment. Ryu notes that interpreters, especially âFirst-Worldâ ones, often âfailed to justify the anger of Jonahâ because of their personal privileged positions and their presumption of yhwhâs universalistic love, which in turn can also silence âthe voice of the weak and the marginalized.â6 Yet, to me as a resistant reader who, like Ryu, share a somewhat similar Southeast Asian background and is more empathetic to the character of Jonah, it is not only the modern interpreters who under-recognized the legitimacy of Jonahâs anger, but also yhwh in the text, specifically in Jon. 4:1â11.7
Building upon Ryuâs insights, this paper aims to explore how the text utilizes the voice of yhwh and strategically guides readers to delegitimize and pathologize Jonahâs reaction in Jon. 4. This paper argues that the rhetorical workings of Jon. 4:1â11 can be considered as a form of gaslighting â understood generally as a form of communication strategy that seeks to undermine a personâs perception of reality by making them doubt their own logic, emotional reactions, and experiences.8 To flesh this out, I will first explore the notion of gaslighting and discuss how this might be an applicable and useful lens for understanding the dialogue between yhwh and the prophet Jonah in Jon. 4. I will then show how the text utilize the voice of yhwh to gaslight and pathologize Jonah, highlighting yhwhâs universal mercy at the expense of Jonahâs feelings. Finally, I will discuss the way in which the text silences Jonahâs voice of resistance by strategically ending the narrative with yhwhâs rhetorical challenge to the prophet, which could be understood as the textâs (re)appropriation regarding how one should approach colonizing forces. My reading is not intended to challenge or make moral judgements regarding the compositional ethics of the writer. Instead, as a âflesh and bloodâ East Asian reader, I offer a reading that seeks to unravel some of the rhetorical dynamics of 4:1â11 and to decenter conventional interpretations by providing an alternative lens through which to evaluate the characterisation of Jonah.
Gaslighting: a Socio-Psychological Persuasion Strategy
The term âgaslightingâ can be traced to the 1938 play Gas Light, which was adapted into the famous 1944 film Gaslight, where a manipulative husband methodically endeavors to isolate and torment his wife, slowly causing her to doubt her sanity. Since then, the concept of gaslighting has made its way into research literature and has been theorized from multiple perspectives, including psychological, sociocultural, political, moral, and communication.9 As briefly mentioned earlier, gaslighting is often considered as a persuasion strategy of âreality-warpingâ in which one individual (often the one with more power in the relationship) systematically attempts to undermine another personâs perception of reality, claiming that the other personâs experiences are not valid and gradually leading the target to surrender.10 Gaslighting can be a common and insidious phenomenon. In my own East Asian immigrant context, a familiar example would be a high-expectation Asian parent telling their struggling college-aged child, who does not necessarily aspire to a medical career but is expected to, âGetting into med school canât be that difficult â your cousin did it, even with a scholarship! Donât be so sensitive, I just want you to be happy.â11 In social or workspace environments, East Asians immigrants, like many people of colour, can often experience gaslighting that involves questioning the validity of their negative experience in response to microaggressions, dismissing their feelings with remarks like âwhy are you overreacting?â without addressing the underlying issue at stake.12 According to Kate Abramson, âgaslightersâ may benefit in some way from their behaviors, but there may also be multiple motivations for gaslighting their subject, including seeing them in benevolent ways rather than seeking to do harm.13 Regardless of the ethics concerning the gasligherâs motivation, the scholarship has increasingly recognized this phenomenon as a socio-psychological persuasion strategy.
To start off, it is important to note that the gaslighting dynamic is not merely disagreement between two parties, but it involves the manipulation of rhetoric and persuasion to reverse the âjustifiability criterion.â Cynthia A. Stark argues that in contrast to a simple disagreement where both parties can hold reasonable positions, gaslighting occurs in scenarios where the gaslighteeâs judgments, even if they are justified, are undermined and delegitimized, while the gaslighterâs arguments, despite lacking immediate justification, are portrayed as fully justifiable.14 This means that gaslighting involves undermining the targetâs justifiability while simultaneously constructing the gaslighterâs own, regardless of how unreasonable it may be for the gaslightee. The gaslightee is expected to subscribe to the reversed justifiability criterion.
According to Stark, this rhetoric of gaslighting involves two crucial mechanisms. First, the gaslighter âsidesteps evidenceâ to undermine the gaslighteeâs judgement or petition, often without providing them a fair hearing because it might âreveal the gaslighterâs judgement is without merit.â15 Sidestepping could take forms of ridicule, blame-shifting, verbal attacks, or simply diverting the conversation to a different topic.16 To use my earlier Asian parental gaslighting as an example, the overbearing parent who claims that âgetting into med school canât be that difficultâ is inherently sidestepping the college-age childâs perception of the challenges in fulfilling the admission requirements by outright denying those difficulties and the associated feelings. Second, Stark notes the gaslighter âdisplaces the issue of credibility of the targetâs judgement from the evidence,â often by focusing âattention upon the character or capacities of the targetâ and attributing âa flaw to the target to âexplainâ [their] judgement and thereby prove it not credible.â17 In this case, when the parent says âyour cousin did it, even with a scholarship,â the gaslighter is passive-aggressively questioning the targetâs academic and intellectual abilities by comparing them to an idealized cousin. Implicit in the statement is the suggestion that the college-age child is not doing enough and thereby not meeting the parental expectations.18 The parentâs statement is not simply a disagreement with the target, but an effective gaslighting strategy that seeks to construct the justifiability of the speakerâs reason while delegitimizing and denying the targetâs perception of challenges.
Another important aspect to note is that gaslighting is not merely a psychological phenomenon but also a social one.19 Paige L. Sweet suggests that gaslighting is particularly effective in power-laden relationships characterized by an imbalance of power, as it exploits structural social inequalities to impose the values and perspectives of the person exercising authority over the other.20 The power dynamics between the two interlocutors, the gaslighter and the gaslightee, is often asymmetrical. As such, while gaslighting is a common communication strategy, it is most commonly manifested in social spaces involving overbearing parents and children, privileged over social minorities, men against women, and abusive relationships.21 Within these contexts, gaslighting rhetoric often portrays the power-wielder as the one who is more sensible, intelligible, and reasonable, while simultaneously subjecting the victim to a âcrazy-makingâ process by creating a social environment of âsurreality,â as described by Sweet, which constructs and pathologizes the victim as âcrazyâ for making their claims, thereby undermining their perceptions and reasoning.22
When a less privileged person is asked to question the validity of their negative experiences or resisting voices in response to microaggressions with remarks like âwhy are you overreacting?â, the gaslightee with lesser status is rhetorically constructed as illogically âcrazyâ with their response.23 Meanwhile the dominant gaslighterâs inquiry is framed as reasonable, even if they have not addressed the underlying issue at stake. Naturally, then, the gaslightee is expected not to âoverreact,â they are expected to dismiss their negative feelings, and conform to the gaslighterâs logic.24 Similarly, to use the earlier example again where the parent says: âI just want you to be happy!â, the child, presuming to challenge the parentâs expectation in this context, is constructed as âcrazyâ for not caring about their own happiness (and lacking the ability to know what will make them happy), which should supposedly be achieved by fulfilling those parental expectations.25 This gaslighting rhetoric positions the parent as morally justifiable and reasonable, while dismissing the targetâs response as emotionally inappropriate due to being âtoo sensitive.â Consequently, combined with the cultural expectation of fulfilling filial piety and submitting to authority, any further objections against the parentâs demands are often disregarded as emotional inappropriateness.26 In this scenario, the resisting voice of the gaslightee is silenced and one is expected to supress individual emotions and comply with the parental expectations. These gaslighting strategies of sidestepping, delegitimizing, and silencing, achieved through a âcrazy-makingâ process that undermines oneâs reasonableness and involves two parties with a power imbalance, will be particularly relevant as we delve into the discussion of Jon. 4:1â11.
Gaslighting and Ancient Texts
Granted, gaslighting is a modern term, but it is not merely a modern phenomenon. Gaslighting could be understood as a form of speech-act that provides a valuable lens through which to examine both contemporary discourse and ancient texts. Gaslighting can take place even before the term itself has been âinvented.â I will briefly highlight two examples from biblical texts that could plausibly be interpreted, at least in part, as instances of gaslighting.27 Consider the discourse dynamics between Job and Bildad in Job 18:1â4. In response to Jobâs earlier speech and lament (16:1â17:16), Bildad accuses Job of tearing himself in his anger (18:4). Bildad appears to mock Job for questioning the universal order and asks long it would take for him to stop talking, essentially telling Job to âshut upâ (18:2a).28 Dissatisfied with Jobâs resistance to their friendly advice (18:3), Bildad instructs Job to be âsensibleâ (×××, or to âunderstandâ) before they can talk (18:2b). In this interaction, Bildad does not directly address Jobâs anguish (e.g., 16:6; 8â9; 17:1, 7) or the reasons for Jobâs resistance to their friendly advice (16:4â5), but instead claims that Job must demonstrate sensibility as a prerequisite for further conversation.29 From a gaslighting perspective, Bildad questions Jobâs intellectual capacity to reason and is judged as insensible and, to some extent, âcrazy.â When Bildad does address Jobâs emotions, he seems to focus not on Jobâs anguish, but on Jobâs allegedly inappropriate rage by accusing Job of tearing himself apart in his anger (18:4).30 By asking rhetorically, âShall the earth be forsaken because of you, or a rock moved from its placeâ (18:4b), Bildad presents his own logic about moral foundations and challenges Job in a sarcastic manner (cf. 14:18). This suggest that, for Bildad, it is not appropriate for the moral and divine order to be disrupted or reversed solely for Jobâs sake, while implying criticism of Job for his own faults and suffering (18:5; cf. 8:5â7).31 This part of the dialogue may be seen as gaslighting because Bildadâs speech dismisses and delegitimizes Jobâs anguish and grievances. In contrast to Bildad, who appears calm and intelligible, Job is portrayed as an angry, irrational and arrogant character who dares to challenge God and the established order.
Another example can perhaps be found in the dialogue between yhwh and Cain in Gen. 4:3â7.32 When Cain becomes angry because yhwh âdid not regardâ (×× ×©×¢×) his offering, yhwh questions Cainâs immediate response by asking, âwhy are you angry and why has your face fallen?â (4:6) and then shifts the focus to whether or not Cain is performing well and the personified sinâs desire for him (4:7). If one reads with Cain, this portrayed speech of yhwh can be considered as an act of gaslighting. The text does not explicitly provide the underlying reason for yhwhâs preference for Abelâs offering over Cainâs (4:3);33 what we are told is that Cain is displeased with this subjective, or perhaps even unreasonable, rejection. Yet yhwh does not seem to be interested in explaining his decision, nor does he directly address the emotional rationale of Cain, but instead discredits and challenges the appropriateness of Cainâs frustrations. Though it is implied that it is not right for Cain to be angry, the text does not explain why it is inappropriate, but capriciously diverts the focus from Cainâs emotional status to his deeds. The weight is rhetorically placed on whether Cain can reckon with potential sin. When read critically, yhwhâs warning of sin, as genuine as it may be for Cain, seems irrelevant to Cainâs initial emotive response because it concerns a âmore general nature about the future,â rather than addressing yhwhâs preference and the quality of Cainâs sacrifice.34 In this sense, while it may appear that the mediated character of yhwh is calm and reasonable and that the fault rests entirely on Cain for many receptive readers,35 it is, in fact, yhwh who is unreasonably sidestepping the issue and shifting the topic. By doing so, the text exonerates yhwh for rejecting Cainâs offering (and by extension, his subsequent murderous act), while keeping the character in question, Cain, at the center.
The two above examples showcase how certain narrative dialogues, even those composed in ancient times, can be examined through the lens of gaslighting to understand how a âgaslighterâ attempts to delegitimize the feelings and experiences of the âgaslightee,â rhetorically diverting and discrediting their experience. In these examples, the discourse involves not only disagreement, but a way that the gaslighter seeks to reverse the justifiability criterion to dismiss the validity of the gaslighteeâs experience and perception, while reinforcing and justifying their mandate to be reasonable.
Gaslighting and Pathologizing the Prophet Jonah in Jon. 4:1â11
Is it Right for You to be Angry?
Now that we have discussed the discursive mechanisms and social dynamics of gaslighting, I will turn to the book of Jonah and examine how the text and its mediated voice of yhwh subject Jonah to gaslighting. Chapter 4 paints a narrative of a very angry and discontented Jonah who ends up sitting outside Nineveh, âangry enough to dieâ (×ר×Ö¾×× ×¢×Ö¾××ת,4:9b).36 Jonah is displeased and frustrated about the events of the narrative as yhwh recants vengeance upon Israelâs oppressors (3:10) and 4:1 writes, âBut this was very displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry,â or literally, âthis became evil (××רע) to Jonah as a great evil (רע×), and it burnt (×ר×) to him.â37 Stating the underlying reason for his initial flight and reciting part of the Exod. 34:6 credo (4:2) that highlights the mercifulness of yhwh, Jonah prays and wishes for his own death (4:3).38 When one reads with Jonah, the reasons for his frustrations can be many. Ryu, for example, argues that Jonahâs anger is a natural response in the context of colonialism because there is a lack of retribution against Israelâs oppressors and a lack of justice for Israel, as God shows mercy to Nineveh.39 According to Ryu, for Jonah and the colonized Jewish audience, the repentance of the Ninevites may not even be genuine because it was used as a means of escaping destruction.40 Steed Vernyl Davidson similarly reads from a postcolonial approach, and suggests that Jonahâs anger is justifiable because the king of Ninevehâs repentance (3:8) focuses on âpersonal transformation rather than fundamental change in imperial policy,â which does not at all address systemic injustices caused by the empire.41 Hanne Løland Levinson contends that Jonahâs anger accumulates gradually, starting from the initial commission and his hesitant trip to Nineveh, and yhwhâs showing mercy to the repentant enemies becomes âthe final drop in an already full bucket.â42
Although the reasons for Jonahâs emotional petition may be many, yhwh simply questions, âIs it right for you to be angry?â (4:4).43 If gaslighting involves an actor who is âempowered to dictate knowledge at the expense of another actorâs sense of reality,â44 yhwhâs question could be seen as an effective gaslighting strategy that admonishes Jonah to deny his perception of reality regarding his frustrations, also as a result, leading receptive readers to question the legitimacy of Jonahâs dissatisfaction. The discursive dynamic can be viewed from three levels.
First, similar to the depiction of yhwh in Jon. 1 where he appears to show minimal interest in reckoning with Jonahâs âinterests or to spare his feelings,â sending his prophet on a âunbearable mission,â yhwh in this passage also seemingly disregards Jonahâs rationale for his actions and ignores his request to die.45 Just as Ryu notes, yhwh does not ask Jonah âIs it right for you to be angry at my sparing of Ninevehâ which would have evoked a potential dialogue concerning the justifiability of yhwhâs decision.46 Instead the question limits the concern specifically on Jonahâs emotions: âIs it right for you to be angry?â As gaslighting involves disregarding available evidence by sidestepping the gaslighteeâs reasoning, the specific inquiry here follows a similar pattern and places the focus on the appropriateness of Jonahâs frustrations rather than discussing yhwhâs own actions. yhwhâs question shifts the topic and solely focuses on Jonahâs emotions, challenging it as an undesirable response.47 In this reading, rather than genuinely caring for Jonahâs petition or inquiring, âAre you feeling all right?â yhwhâs question has the rhetorical effect of contesting the validity of Jonahâs emotions and signaling a degree of disapproval.
Second, coming from yhwh as a seemingly autonomous and superior deity, the question carries a âcertain aggressive or coercive forceâ48 against Jonahâs plea and reinforces yhwhâs power to determine what should be the appropriate response in light of the events that took place. As Amy Erickson notes, yhwhâs question is about â[w]hat good does Jonahâs anger effect?â49 This passive-aggressive undertone in yhwhâs question may resonate with many Asian readers, reminiscent of the familiar parental question, âWhy are you so angry right now? I do this for your own good,â which rhetorically and authoritatively centers the perspective of the hierarchically dominant parent as a caring actor regarding the particular topic being discussed. Any subsequent attempt to challenge the dominant gaslighter is seemingly futile because the question not only sidesteps the issue at stake, but also rationalizes the perspective of the person asking it, while invalidating the emotions and perceptions of the one being questioned. In line with the way that the text constructs yhwh as a superior deity over the human prophet Jonah throughout the narrative (e.g., 1:4, 17; 2:10), the text continues to leverage the divine-human power imbalance and the rhetorical question in 4:4 positions yhwh at the center as the dominant challenger. Jonah, as the subject, is expected to reorient himself towards yhwhâs perspective and adopt the supposedly âcorrectâ response. In this sense, yhwhâs question, âIs it right for you to be angryâ is also an expression of control, a way of saying to Jonah, âIt is not right for you to be angry,â as when one gaslight the subject as overreacting â âyou are too sensitive.â50 The question is intended to make Jonah doubt the appropriateness of his response to Ninevehâs fate, which by implication, also prompts readers to question the appropriateness of Jonahâs response.
In this line of thought, then thirdly, yhwhâs question ridicules and, in a sense, silences Jonah as a dissenter by focusing on Jonahâs emotions instead of yhwhâs decision and rhetorically suggesting that Jonahâs present feelings of anger and dissatisfaction are unfitting. Just as Rhiannon Graybill who approaches this passage from affect theory and focuses on Jonahâs unhappiness, yhwhâs question can be reformulated as âwhy canât you be happy?â or as a passive aggressive statement of âI just want you to be happy.â51 In the logic of yhwhâs rhetoric, the appropriate response is that Jonah must seize his anger, become a content prophet who reorients his views of retribution and redemption based on yhwhâs perspective. The object lesson, then, is for Jonah to develop a sense of yhwhâs universalistic mercy towards the colonizing adversaries by eroding his anger, which in turn means letting go of his frustrated feelings, and be both content and silent. To use the terminology in gaslighting studies, yhwhâs question here reverses the âjustifiability criterionâ and creates a social environment of âsurreality,â in which the text constructs Jonahâs opinion of the Ninevite adversaries and of yhwhâs leniency as irrational, inappropriate, and invalid.52 In contrast, yhwh is characterized as calm and reasonable.53 To put it more directly, Jonah is pathologized, constructed to be âcrazyâ enough to be so angry since yhwh has shown his universal love and unwavering mercy. In this vein, the idea of âtrueâ happiness and satisfaction is monopolized and dictated, achievable only by adopting yhwhâs perspective.
Taken together, then, the gaslighting strategy of yhwhâs question is effective precisely because it simultaneously exploits and reinforces a power imbalance in which yhwh is ultimately at the center, with the autonomous power to challenge Jonahâs emotions, while Jonah, as his prophetic agent and instrument, should ideally submit to yhwhâs decision, however unreasonable and unsatisfactory it may be for the prophet. Finally, it should also be noted that in the immediate context (4:5), Jonah does not yield a response to yhwhâs question. While commentators often take Jonahâs silence after 4:4 to mean that he âhas nothing more to say,â54 it is just as reasonable to argue that it is through the hands of the writer that the character of Jonah is not given an opportunity to respond explicitly to yhwhâs question. The text simply transitions to another scene of Jonah leaving the city, further to observe the fate of Nineveh. In this reading, the text silences Jonahâs resistant voice after utilizing yhwhâs voice to gaslight the prophet. Jonahâs silence is ascribed and, in a sense, forced upon him. When the text does allow Jonah to explain his frustrations, as we shall now see, it again sidesteps the issue at stake, ridicules Jonahâs response and finally silences him again.
Is it Right for You to be Angry about the Qiqayon?
In the following scene, yhwhâs divine providence of a qiqayon plant as an initial sign to ease Jonah discomfort from the scorching heat, initially leading to Jonahâs great joy (4:6), ultimately turns out to be another object lesson for Jonah as yhwh âappointedâ (×× ×) the worm to smite the plant and then allows the sun and hot wind to torture the prophet (4:8). Jonah is âbeing set upâ for the coda.55 Following Jonahâs expression of his desire to die (4:8), yhwh once again confronts his anger, questioning him, âIs it right for you to be angry about the qiqayon?â (4:9a).
yhwhâs question and his subsequent comments can also be seen as a type of gaslighting strategy that delegitimates Jonahâs frustrations and constructs him as an irrational prophet who should reorient himself with yhwhâs mercy. First, unlike the textual silence after yhwhâs first challenge to Jonah in 4:5, the text does tell its readers Jonahâs forthright response: âI do well to be angry, angry enough to die!â (4:9b). Here, while this time the text allows Jonah to verbally confront yhwh, the portrayal of Jonahâs reaction to the withered plant is shaped as exaggerated, and perhaps even amusing, thereby leading many commentators to see Jonah as a seemingly humorous and child-like prophet.56 The text constructs Jonahâs wildly wavering responses between joy and anger and then contrasts them with yhwhâs final response (4:10â11), revealing to Jonah that his reactions are inappropriate and inadequate. Taken from a perspective of gaslighting, the text displaces Jonahâs credibility by guiding the readers to view that Jonahâs response is not as legitimate as he claims to be (4:9b), as his responses are portrayed as childish, absurd, and dramatized. By presenting Jonah as âangry enough to dieâ (4:9b) for a plant, he is pathologized and constructed as âcrazy,â and therefore (the readers understands) his judgement is questionable and in need of a moral lesson from yhwh (4:10â11).57
Second, the text also attributes a flaw to Jonahâs ability to explain his judgement and to showcase that it is not credible. In the textâs logic, Jonahâs frustrations and anger towards the scorching heat and the disappearance of the plant are illegitimate because the plant is not Jonahâs labour, and he does not make it grow (4:10â11). Just as Ehud Ben Zvi observes, 4:10â11 strategically contrasts yhwhâs concern (âIâ) with the âpositiveâ ס×× with Jonahâs concern (âYouâ) against the ânegative ס××.â58 The text utilizes these two contrasting ××¢ clauses to encourage readers to understand yhwhâs justification of mercy while highlighting Jonahâs lack of labour.59 While it seems that Jonahâs frustration stems not from the plantâs death but rather from the oppressive heat inflicted by yhwh (4:8), it is yhwh who poses a seemingly misleading question, redirecting focus from Jonahâs physical discomfort to the fate of the plant (4:9).60 The text strategically guides its readers to see that Jonah is compassionate about a small plant for his own interest yet showing no mercy towards the lives of a populated city, and hence illustrates that âthe inconsistency rests not with yhwh but with Jonah.â61 Jonah âcan have no good argument,â62 not because he lacks logic (cf. 4:2â3), but because, as Ryu carefully observes, the rhetoric of the text âtrapsâ Jonah and his âanger is now connected exclusively to the plant.â63 The text gaslights Jonah by sidestepping from his rationale for anger to show that if Jonah values the plant that yhwh creates, then yhwh also values the lives of those who live in Nineveh. In this sense, yhwhâs concern is not entirely about Jonahâs genuine feelings and frustrations, but another lesson to highlight and showcase his divine sympathy for Nineveh.64 As such, the text leads receptive and persuaded readers to question the validity for Jonahâs feelings and perception. yhwhâs pity is justified while Jonahâs anger towards yhwhâs sympathy of the perpetrators is delegitimized and pathologized. The âcrazyâ prophetâs disappointment is deemed as inappropriate, but yhwh on the other hand, can pity, thereby fulfilling the credo of his character as a âmerciful, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love, and relenting from disasterâ (4:2).
At the end, Jonah âdisappearsâ and is not given the final voice to respond to yhwhâs remarks just as the book ends. Many previous readings, including Ryuâs, have considered Jonahâs silence as a form of active response, expressing resistance, anger, or obedience.65 Others, such as Elizabeth Boase and Sarah Agnew, contend his silence as a trauma response that is marked by âthe ongoing collapse of meaning and a failure of languageâ as yhwh seems to side with the oppressors.66 I, however, suggest that it is in fact the writer who silences the character of Jonah and this silence is instead ascribed to Jonah by the text just as the text deliberately ends here. If Ryu argues that the intended goal of the text is to protest and resist âa theology that elevates divine control over divine justiceâ by satirizing yhwhâs decision to spare Nineveh, should not the text give Jonah his final voice to explicitly satirize yhwhâs statement by challenging yhwh back with a question?67 Moreover, if the text has repeatedly used the voice of yhwh to gaslight Jonah, delegitimize his logic and ridicule the character, as I have shown, it would seem awkward for the text to make an abrupt turn to suddenly satirize yhwh through Jonahâs silence in the coda. Similarly, if Jonahâs silence is a textual feature of trauma in which âthere are no words to explain the flight, the anger and the final silence,â which is intended to resonate with the implied readers as Boase and Agnew argue, it is also strange that the text still has so much to say following Jonahâs silence in 4:4 (supposedly also a failure of language in the logic of Boase and Agnewâs work), in which the text commandeers yhwhâs voice to give Jonah an object lesson, downplaying the prophetâs legitimacy to be frustrated.68
I suggest that a more straightforward answer is that Jonahâs final silence, like his silence after 4:4, is ascribed. Jonah is âsilencedâ not only by the gaslighting rhetoric employed in the text but also by the intentional arrangement of the coda through the hands of the writer, as the prophet is forced to submit to yhwhâs final verdict without another chance to protest in the writerâs narrative world. The book deliberately ends with yhwhâs rhetorical question to Jonah that yhwh, the supreme deity has his sovereign power to spare and pity whoever he wishes, including Nineveh.69 As Tzvi Abusch notes, the textual silence after 4:11 rhetorically invites the readers to decide âhow Jonah might have respondedâ and answer yhwhâs question themselves: If yhwh cares for humans, should you?70 For receptive and compliant readers, then, it is Jonah who needs to show mercy and forgiveness, just as yhwh has shown to Nineveh.71 When read against the grain of the text, however, it can be said that the universalistic forgiveness and mercy towards the perpetrators and oppressors are imposed and forced upon the prophet. By ending with yhwh as the one who utters the last words, Jonah is silenced and not given another opportunity to respond. The text, in part, delegitimizes and silences Jonahâs right to grief, frustrate, and anger. The text appropriated, at worst, forced mercy and forgiveness as a response to the âwicked cityâ of Nineveh.
Conclusion: The (Appropriated) Response to Navigating Oppression
It is not without reason that generations of interpreters have characterized Jonah as an anti-type figure, a perception seemingly guided by the text itself. In this paper, I have demonstrated how gaslighting can provide a valuable lens for understanding the rhetorical dynamics of Jon. 4:1â11. I have shown that the text attempts to gaslight the character Jonah through a âcrazy-makingâ process, pathologizing and delegitimizing Jonahâs reasons for his frustrations by sidestepping the issue and attributing flaws to his logic. In contrast, the grounds for yhwhâs divine actions, as absurd as they may seem to Jonah, are portrayed as elevated and dignified.
As a âflesh and bloodâ Asian immigrant reader with Hong Kong roots, the rhetorical workings of Jon. 4:1â11 appears to me as somewhat comparable to narratives that portray the Hong Kong student protesters of the past decade as âcrazyâ for expressing their anger and frustration at a seemingly peaceful and prosperous city by disrupting the existing order; for some, especially those from elite backgrounds, the appropriate response would have been to accept, or even embrace, the reality of the prosperous world beyond and move forward.72 For me, the rhetorical dynamics also resembles political discourses that construct Asian immigrants who are âcrazy enoughâ to vocalize past and present issues of racism and inequality, in which the suitable way to live is to appreciate the possibility of prosperity through living in the West.73 Like Jon. 4:1â11, these discourses simultaneously seek to privilege and rationalize the logic of those in power, while undermining the voices of resistance as irrational and unjustified. Gaslighting, which effectively âtargets those who resist,â74 serves as a mechanism through which these discourses mold their audiences to expect compliance with the logic of the privileged from those who resist.
If, as David Downs argues, the text of Jonah âlooks beyond vengeance and toward an encounter with the enemy aimed at repentance and the concomitant forgiveness of Godâ from a post-exilic situation,75 I must stress that this possibility of mercy and forgiveness towards the past (and perhaps current) adversaries or colonizers, to an extent achieved through gaslighting, is also a form of subjective appropriation regarding how one should approach oppressing forces. Just as Davidson contends, the final forms of prophetic literature often âsubscribe to the logic of empire,â in which they are essentially âa product of elite society, intended for the most part for an elite readership.â76 The possibility of mercy and forgiveness is developed by âpitting the small bush against the residents of the empire,â and the book of Jonah elevates the interest of the empire as the text advocates the prophet to ârelinquish solidarity with the vulnerable in preference for the power.â77 This elitist and subjective appropriation to navigate colonial forces may appear sensible for those already in power and aligned with the empire, but it also easily stifles and disregards the concept of justice for those who resist, stripping away their credibility and right to express grief and anger.
In recognizing the rhetorical dynamics involving a process of gaslighting in Jon. 4:1â11 through this essay, it becomes clearer how readers are often guided by the text to discredit and pathologize the character Jonah. As such, this analysis prompts interpreters to decenter traditional evaluations of Jonah and instead foreground the voice of resistance and the rationale behind the prophetâs emotions. Similarly, because gaslighting is a common and insidious phenomenon that exist not only in the modern era, readers should cultivate awareness to meticulously and responsibly scrutinize the rhetorical tactics employed by those speaking from positions of privilege. This opens the way to ensure that the voices of the marginalized are not easily pathologized and silenced, both within ancient texts and in modern discourses.
Acknowledgments
I thank Savanna Fong, Julia Mayo, Suzanna Millar, and Mireia Vidal for their insightful feedback on an earlier draft of this manuscript, as well as the anonymous reviewers whose valuable comments contributed to enhancing this article.
For ârunaway servant,â see, for example, Ehud Ben Zvi, Signs of Jonah: Reading and Rereading in Ancient Yehud (JSOTSup, 367; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2003), 65â79. For âanti-hero,â see, for example, Katherine J. Dell âReinventing the Wheel: The Shaping of the book of Jonah,â in John Barton and David J. Reimer (eds.,), After the Exile: Essays in Honour of Rex Mason (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1996), 85â101 (89); Janet Howe Gaines, Forgiveness in a Wounded World: Jonahâs Dilemma (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2003), 112â13; Shimon Bakon, âJonah: the Conscientious Objector,â jbq 37.2 (2009), 95â102 (96â97). For âanti-prophet,â see, for example, Yvonne Sherwood, A Biblical Text and its Afterlives: The Survival of Jonah (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 27; Hyun Chul Paul Kim, âJonah Read Intertextually,â jbl 126.3 (2007) 497â528 (499â503). For âanti-Noah,â see, for example, Kim, âJonah Read Intertextually,â 503. For âanti-Abraham,â see, for example, Uriel Simon, Jonah: The Traditional Hebrew Text and the New jps Translation (jps Bible Commentary; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1999), 39â40. For âanti-Mosesâ and âanti-Elijah,â see, for example, Duane L. Christensen, âThe Song of Jonah: A Metrical Analysis,â jbl 104.2 (1985): 217â31 (230â31). For âanti-Jeremiah,â see, for example, Hans W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah: A Commentary (trans. Margaret Kohl; MN: Augsburg Press, 1986), 120; Gary Yates, ââThe Weeping Prophetâ and âPouting prophetâ in Dialogue: Intertextual Connections Between Jeremiah and Jonah,â jets 59.2 (2016): 223â39.
For example, Rosa Ching Shao, Jonah: A Pastoral and Contextual Commentary (Asia Bible Commentary; Cumbria: Langham, 2019), 6â15, comments on Jonahâs frustration in Jon. 4, that Jonah is like âan unruly, insubordinate teenager, unable to keep up his pretensions any longer, Jonah burst out with his real feelings. He argues like an unmanageable adolescent, adamant and defiant in presenting and defending his own views.â
Chesung Justin Ryu, âSilence as Resistance: A Postcolonial Reading of the Silence of Jonah in Jonah 4.1â11,â jsot 34.2 (2009): 195â218 (196). See also, idem, âDivine Rhetoric and Prophetic Silence in the Book of Jonah,â in Danna Nolan Fewell (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015), 229â35.
André LaCocque and Pierre Emmanuel LaCocque, Jonah: A Psycho-Religious Approach to the Prophet (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1990), 121â22.
Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 198. Cf. Serge Frolov, âReturning the Ticket: God and his Prophet in the Book of Jonah,â jsot 85 (1999): 85â105. There are also readings that seek to reimagine Nineveh not as a monolithic representation of an evil empire; see Rebecca Lindsay, âOverthrowing Nineveh: Revisiting the City with Postcolonial Imagination,â The Bible & Critical Theory 12.1 (2016): 49â61. In my view, such an attempt to nuance generalization is commendable, but it does not necessarily exonerate the colonial force associated with the portrayal of the city, especially for readers who may have been subject to similar colonial experience, nor does it invalidate Ryuâs reading from his social position. For a discussion of the connections between Nineveh and the haunting effects of Israelâs colonizers from a postexilic perspective, see Juliana Claassens, âFacing the Colonizer that Remains: Jonah as a Symbolic Trauma Narrative,â cbq 85.1 (2023): 36â52.
Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 199; Ryu notes that even when they do, they are only to find a âpretext for Jonahâs anger rather than justifying or praising it.â
The concept of âresistant readingâ can broadly be understood as an attempt to read from the point of view of âthe Otherâ as defined by the presented narrative. See, for example, Adele Reinhartz, Befriending the Beloved Disciple: A Jewish Reading of the Gospel of John (New York: Continuum, 2005), 81â98.
Paige L. Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â American Sociological Review 84.5 (2019): 851â75; Katharina Anna Sodoma, âEmotional Gaslighting and Affective Empathy,â International Journal of Philosophical Studies 30.3 (2022): 320â38.
See, for example, Kate Abramson, âTurning Up the Lights on Gaslighting,â Philosophical Perspectives 28.1 (2014): 1â30; Angelique M. Davis and Rose Ernst, âRacial Gaslighting,â Politics, Groups, and Identities 7.4 (2019): 761â74; Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â 851â75; Elena RuÃz, âCultural Gaslighting,â Hypatia 35.4 (2020): 618â713; Heston Tobias and Ameil Joseph, âSustaining Systemic Racism Through Psychological Gaslighting: Denials of Racial Profiling and Justifications of Carding by Police Utilizing Local News Media,â Race and Justice 10.4 (2020): 424â55; Clint G. Graves and Leland G Spencer, âRethinking the Rhetorical Epistemics of Gaslighting,â Communication Theory 32.1 (2022): 48â67; Kate Manne, âMoral Gaslighting,â Aristotelian Society Supplementary 97.1 (2023): 122â45.
Clint G. Graves and Jennifer A. Samp, âThe Power to Gaslight,â Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 38.11 (2021): 3378â86. Cf. Abramson, âTurning Up the Lights,â 2, writes that âthe gaslighter tries (consciously or not) to induce in someone the sense that her reactions, perceptions, memories and/or beliefs are not just mistaken, but utterly without grounds â paradigmatically, so unfounded as to qualify as crazy.â
Although parental expectations are not a unique feature in an Asian context, multiple studies have shown that there are ethnic differences, with Asian parents (including those in diaspora) often found imposing higher demands for their children, particularly in areas such as academic performance, career choices, and musical learning. See, for example, We-Cheng Mau, âParental Influences on the High School Studentsâ Academic Achievement: A Comparison of Asian Immigrants, Asian Americans, and White Americans,â Psychology in the School 34.3 (1997): 267â77; Kimberly Goyette and Yu Xie, âEducational Expectations of Asian American Youths: Determinants and Ethnic Differences,â Sociology of Education 72.1 (1999): 22â36; Yoko Yamamoto and Susan D. Holloway, âParental Expectations and Childrenâs Academic Performance in Sociocultural Context,â Educational Psychology Review 22 (2010): 189â214 (196). Cf. Sara Ahmed, The Promise of Happiness (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 93â94; in Ahmedâs terms, for the parent here in this example, education outside of the medical field is apparently âconstructed as an unhappy lifeâ and therefore the college-aged child is judged to be âunhappyâ if one does not meet the entrance requirements. As such, the parentâs comments can be seen as gaslighting, reflecting a denial and failure to acknowledge the possibility of education and careers outside of medicine.
âVeronica E. Johnson, et al., ââItâs Not in Your Headâ: Gaslighting, âSplaining, Victim Blaming, and Other Harmful Reactions to Microaggressions,â Perspectives on Psychological Science 16.5 (2021): 1024â36.
Abramson, âTurning Up the Lights,â 11.
Cynthia A. Stark, âGaslighting, Misogyny, and Psychological Oppression,â The Monist 102.2 (2019): 221â35 (223â25).
Ibid., 224.
Ibid., 225
Ibid., 224â226, italics original.
Cf. Janet T. Y. Leung and Daniel T. L. Shek, âExpecting My Child to Become âDragonââ Development of the Chinese Parental Expectation on Childâs Future Scale,â International Journal on Disability and Human Development 10.3 (2011): 257â65.
Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â 851â75.
Ibid, 851â57.
See Damien W. Riggs and Clare Bartholomaeus, âGaslighting in the Context of Clinical Interactions with Parents of Transgender Children,â Sexual and Relationship Therapy 33.4 (2018): 382â94 (385); Stark, âGaslighting, Misogyny, and Psychological Oppression,â 221â35; Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â 851â75; Johnson, et al., ââItâs Not in Your Headâ,â 1024â36.
Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â 852â57, 869.
The ability or capacity to resist does not mean one is not being gaslighted. In fact, gaslighting targets resisting voices; see Davis and Ernst, âRacial Gaslighting,â 761â74 (771).
Johnson, et al., ââItâs Not in Your Headâ,â 1032â33.
Cf. Ahmed, The Promise of Happiness, 93â94.
Cf. Huang-Hui Yeh and Olwen Bedford, âA Test of the Dual Filial Piety Model,â Asian Journal of Social Psychology 6.3 (2003): 215â28; Chung-An Chen and Chih-Wei Hsieh, âConfucian Values in Public Organizations: Distinctive Effects of Two Interpersonal Norms on Public Employeesâ Work Morale,â Chinese Public Administration Review 8.2 (2017): 104â19.
By using the phrase âin partâ here implies that I do not assert that gaslighting is the sole function or interpretation applicable in these cases.
Dominick Hernández, The Prosperity of the Wicked: A Theological Challenge in the Book of Job and in Ancient Near Eastern Literature (Perspectives on Hebrew Scriptures and its Contexts, 36; NJ: Piscataway, Gorgias Press, 2022): 118.
John E. Hartley, The Book of Job (nicot; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988), 273, considers this sensibility as âsome basic wisdom.â
According to Job, God is the one who torn (×רף) him (16:9).
Hernández, The Prosperity of the Wicked, 117â22. See also Hartley, The Book of Job, 272.
Some scholars (such as Yitzhak Berger, Jonah in the Shadows of Eden [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2016], 13) argue that Jonah 4:3 is an allusion to Gen. 4:6, but, as we will see, this possibility does not affect my overall argument.
See John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Themes in Biblical Narrative, 14; Leiden: Brill, 2011), 39â53, for an overview of how commentators often seek to fill in the interpretive gap by providing their own reasons, even though the Hebrew text does not explicitly explain yhwhâs preference.
Ibid., 58.
Ibid., 53â61.
While most modern translations translate Jonahâs reaction as âangry,â some commentators, for example, Jack M. Sassan translate the reaction as âterribly saddened, and was confused/shaken up.â See Jack, M. Sasson, Jonah (The Anchor Bible, 24B; New York: Doubleday, 1990), 274â75. But even if the response is seen as grieving rather than angry, it does not undermine my argument about gaslighting, which is that gaslighting is used as a communicative strategy to downplay and delegitimize Jonahâs reaction. See also Hanne Løland Levinson, The Death Wish in the Hebrew Bible (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 80â81, for a critique of Sassanâs translation.
Instead of angry or burning, some translate ××¨× as âdejected,â denoting a milder sense of unhappiness. See Sasson, Jonah, 270â75. As Susan Niditch notes, âburning angerâ may better capture the emotional nuance in this context (cf. Gen. 4:5â6, 31:36, Num. 16:15, 1 Sam 18:8, 20:7, and 2 Sam 13:21); Susan Niditch, Jonah: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2023), 103.
For a discussion of Jonahâs desires expressed here in 4:2â3, see Alyssa Walker, âJonahâs Genocidal and Suicidal Attitude â and Godâs Rebuke,â Kairos: Evangelical Journal of Theology 9.1 (2015): 18â21.
Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 208â09. Cf. Levinson, Death Wish, 83, suggests that Jonahâs anger is related to his prioritization of what he perceives as justice over Godâs emphasis on mercy.
Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 206â07.
Steed Vernyl Davidson, âPostcolonial Readings of the Prophets,â in Carolyn J. Sharp (ed.), The Oxford Handbooks of the Prophets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 507â526 (522).
Levinson, Death Wish, 83.
Even if ××× functions adverbially (thus rendering the question as âAre you deeply grieved/angry?â) as suggested by some scholars, such as Thomas M. Bolin, it could still be seen as a gaslighting response that reinforces inquirerâs view that Jonah should ideally not be grieved or angry, especially considering yhwhâs final response in 4:9â11 as a corrective statement for Jonah, which will be discussed later; Thomas M. Bolin, Freedom Beyond Forgiveness: The Book of Jonah Re-Examined, (JSOTSup, 236; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997), 152. Compared to the Hebrew, lxx presents yhwhâs question more concisely as âÎá¼° ÏÏόδÏα λελύÏηÏαι Ïá½»;â which can be translated as âwhy are you so aggrieved?â or âare you very aggrieved?â
Graves and Spencer, âRethinking the Rhetorical Epistemics of Gaslighting,â 53.
Frolov, âReturning The Ticket,â 92. Cf. Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah (wbc, 31; Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987), 503; Stuart suggests that yhwh ignored Jonahâs desire to die because it was a âstupid request, voiced out of frustration and pettinessâ that do not deserve yhwh to âhonor it with a response.â Interpretations like this could also be understood as commentarial gaslighting because they undermine the character Jonahâs emotions and suicidal thoughts, while delegitimizing them as foolish and absurd without directly addressing the characterâs rationale behind his grievances. See also Levinson, Death Wish, 85â87 (87), which argues that Jonahâs death wish does not mean that death is better than life in general, but rather it is an extreme expression of anger and frustration that Jonahâs live has become unbearable for him and death is âa way out of [his] prophetic mission.â
Ryu, âDivine Rhetoric and Prophetic Silence,â 231.
For anger and frustrations as undesirable experiences, see Sianne Ngai, Ugly Feelings (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005), 2â3, 6â7.
Rhiannon Graybill, âProphecy and the Problem of Happiness,â in Fiona C. Black and Jennifer L. Koosed (eds.), Reading with Feeling: Affect Theory and the Bible (Atlanta: sbl Press, 2019), 95â122 (103).
Amy Erickson, Jonah: Introduction and Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 338, emphasis mine.
See also the discussion on control and power in Stuart Lasine, âJonahâs Complexes and Our Own: Psychology and the Interpretation of the Book of Jonah,â jsot 41.2 (2016): 253â54.
Graybill, âProphecy and the Problem of Happiness,â 103.
Stark, âGaslighting, Misogyny, and Psychological Oppression,â 224; Sweet, âThe Sociology of Gaslighting,â 852.
Erickson, Jonah, 338, notes that in contrast to Jonah, yhwhâs anger is essentially absent from the book, and the yhwhâs question in 4:4 âpicks up Jonahâs characterization of yhwh as âslow to angerâ (4:2) and wonders coolly if Jonahâs anger is good, or if it does (him) any good.â
T. Desmond Alexander, David Baker, and Bruce Waltke, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah (totc; Nottingham: ivp Press, 1988), 140. Cf. Shao, Jonah, 70; Niditch, Jonah, 108.
Alastair G. Hunter, The Judgement of Jonah: Yahweh, Jerusalem and Nineveh, (lhb/ots, 642; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2022), 211. Cf. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah, 177.
For example, James Limburg, Jonah: A Commentary (otl; Westminster John Knox, 1993), 27; Shao, Jonah, 66. See also Will Kynes, âBeat Your Parodies into Swords, and Your Parodied Books into Spears: A New Paradigm for Parody in the Hebrew Bible,â BibInt 19.3 (2011): 276â310 (302), which contends that Jonah, âand not the prophets who obeyed as they should, is the butt of the jokeâ and the text âuses the prophetic texts it parodies as a standard by which to satirize the unrepentance and disobedience of its readers.â
Whether Jonahâs âcrazyâ characterisation can be seen as a parody or satire is a debatable matter (see, for example, Arnold J. Band, âSwallowing Jonah: The Eclipse of Parody,â Prooftexts 10.2 [1990]: 177â95), but the text seems to construct Jonah here as somewhat deranged by exaggerating and dramatizing his responses regarding the withered plant.
Ehud Ben Zvi âJonah 4:11 and the Metaprophetic Character of the Book of Jonah,â JHebS 9.6 (2009): 1â13 (8). See also ibid., 10â11; I acknowledge that while Ben Zvi argues that the last verse can be seen as a rhetorical question, he arrives at a somewhat different conclusion than I do. He suggests that 4:10â11 may invite certain late Persian period literati, who are aware of âthe destruction of Nineveh and of Jerusalem,â to reflect on âthe eventual fulfillment of yhwhâs word, including its potential postponement, though not cancellation due to pious actions; the human inability to predict yhwhâs actions and even construe the deityâs motives.â However, my argument on gaslighting remains valid in this case, as these profound theological reflections (as proposed by Ben Zvi) are constructed by first gaslighting the character Jonah.
Ibid, 8.
Niditch, Jonah, 115, notes that emotional torment can also be interwoven with the physical suffering of the protagonist.
Alexander, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, 144.
Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, 508.
Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 218, italics original.
For a further discussion of the instructional purposes of the dialogue, see also John H. Walton, âThe Object Lesson of Jonah 4:5â7 and the Purpose of the Book of Jonah,â bbr 2 (1992): 47â52.
See, for example, Ryu, âSilence as Resistance,â 218; Jione Havea, âAdjusting Jonah,â International Review of Mission 102.1 (2013): 44â55; Simon, Jonah, 48; Simon sees Jonahâs silence as an adoption of Ps. 65:2; cf. Shao, Jonah, 81.
Elizabeth Boase and Sarah Agnew, âWhispered in the Sound of Silenceâ: Traumatising the Book of Jonah, The Bible & Critical Theory 12.1 (2016): 4â22 (19). Taking a similar psychological trauma approach, Ka-Leung Wong considers Jonahâs silence as a form of ânumbingâ and âdissociationâ to express his inability to comprehend the divine order; Ka-Leung Wong, Rediscovering the Bible: Book of Jonah (Hong Kong: Logos, 2023), 209.
Ryu, âDivine Rhetoric and Prophetic Silence,â 234; idem, âSilence as Resistance,â 218.
Boase and Agnew, âWhispered in the Sound of Silence,â 20. Although I am fully aware that Boase and Agnewâs argument cannot be objectively proved or disproved, it is still helpful to note that, as Roger Luckhurst reminds us, trauma âgenerates narrative possibility just as much as impossibility,â in which the shocking experience of trauma resists language, but at the same time âthe manic production of retrospective narratives seeks to explicate the traumaâ as a necessary effort reconfigure the disruptive experience; Roger Luckhurst, The Trauma Question (London: Routledge, 2008), 79, 83, italics original. To an extent, the very response of yhwh in 4:10â11 can also be seen as a trauma response, not as a failure of language, but as the writerâs subjective appropriation of the way to navigate the perceived reality of trauma, a point that I will return to in my conclusion.
As mentioned in note 58, I am aware that there are scholars, such as Ben Zvi, who argue that the final verses invite additional theological reflections and interpretations.
Tzvi Abusch, âJonah and God: Plants, Beasts, and Humans in the Book of Jonah (an Essay in Interpretation),â janer 13 (2013): 146â52 (152).
In a sense, it can also be said that the text leads compliant readers and interpreters who do not necessarily sympathize with Jonahâs frustrations to gaslight Jonah. See, for example, note 45 for my comments on commentarial gaslighting.
For a discussion with concrete examples on how religious leaders use biblical texts to openly oppose the civic movement, see Sam Tsang, âExegeting the Occupation of Hong Kong: The Umbrella Movement as a Battle ground for Liberation Hermeneutics,â in Justin K. H. Tse and Jonathan Y. Tan (eds.), Theological Reflection on the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 131â62 (148â55).
See, for example, Pratyusha Tummala-Narra, âAwakening to Racial Trauma Faced by Asian Americans,â Psychoanalytic Dialogues 22 (2023): 77â86 (80â81); false self-adaptation can be denoted by a false hope in securing prosperity that âthe American Dream seems possible enough if [Asian immigrants] just work hard enough and donât make political or sociocultural waves.â
Davis and Ernst, âRacial Gaslighting,â 771, italics original.
David J. Downs, âThe Specter of Exile in the Story of Jonah,â Horizons in Biblical Theology 31 (2009): 27â44 (44).
Davidson, âPostcolonial Readings of the Prophets,â 508, 513.
Ibid., 522.
