248 Ph. Guillaume (Jon 4,3.8) is a requisite of fairness. Jonah is not angry because the sirocco hurts him but because of the theological inconsistency that he perceives in God’s decision not to do what he had said he would do (Jon 3,10). Jonah 4 is a theoretical discussion of good and evil (32). To his tormentor (33) who points out that he would be the first victim of the meting out of divine justice (“would wrath be any good to you?”), Jonah retorts that anger, divine anger, is good even if it entails his own death (Jon 4,8-9) and that of a numerous population. JHWH should kill Jonah rather than plants, this is the least a just god should do to a disobedient prophet. Jonah insists that his execution be immediate (ht[ Jon 4,3), not in order to shorten his agony, but to salvage divine justice and with it the foundation of the universe (34). Jonah does not dodge his responsibility, he does not ask for mercy for himself and punishment for Nineveh. All along, Jonah’s concern is the defense of justice from the encroachments of mercy. With a final rhetorical question, JHWH evades the issue. Cheap grace prevails. With the assertive ending, JHWH raises to the challenge, acknowledging Jonah’s point while introducing the issue of delay. Delayed punishment is not pardon. Indeed, the possibility of reading a rhetorical question at the end of Jonah is part of the narrative strategy of the book. Upon reaching verse 11, the reader reacts to the shock produced by the plain meaning of the text and seeks to avoid the conclusion that God will not shed a tear over Nineveh. The possibility to read a rhetorical question in Jon 4,11 is the narrator’s rhetorical trick (35) to trip the reader… for a while. It produces many loose ends and delights modern scholarship that revels in ambiguity, irony, satire, sometimes at the expense of the message. Yet, the end of the book puts a sharp end to the fun. If the rhetorical question is a temporary option to provide greater perspective, at the end the declarative reading is inescapable. Cooper understates his case when he claims that “the book of Jonah itself gives no grounds for choosing between the interrogative and declarative renderings of 4.11” (36). Jonah itself provides enough arguments in favour of his thesis, more so when the other Jonah joins in. 5. Jonah 4,11 in light of 2 Kings Readers who find it hard to stomach a JHWH unmoved by Nineveh’s pious show should refer to the choice of the name Jonah used also in the book of Kings. As much as the knowledge of the fall of Nineveh in 612 BCE, the awkward explanations for the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE play a role in the interpretation of Jonah. Deuteronomistic theology barely managed to explain Hezekiah’s failure by making it a consequence of his showing his treasure to Babylonian envoys (2 Kgs 20,12-19), but Josiah’s inability to revert Huldah’s oracle (2 Kgs 22,15-20) is beyond Deuteronomistic theological ability. In spite of their great piety, Hezekiah’s only consolation was that he would die (32) Jonah 4 uses forms of [r and bwf thrice: LANDES, “Dissonances”, 291-292. (33) hnwyh cf. Jer 25,38; 46,16; 50,16; Zeph 3,1. (34) E. LEVINE, “Jonah as a Philosophical Book”, ZAW 96 (1984) 241-242. (35) The notion is from BEN ZVI, Signs, 36, who applies it to Jonah’s choice. (36) COOPER, “Caprice”, 158.