Now for the second time (compare 2.1) Jonah prays to the Lord, but here the tone of the prayer is very different. This time he explains the reason for his anger at God’s merciful treatment of the people of Nineveh. The flashback employed here tells us for the first time the reason for Jonah’s attempt in chapter 1 to travel in the opposite direction instead of to Nineveh. The beginning of his prayer takes the form of a question, and the question form is retained in Good News Translation. But such rhetorical questions, which do not really expect an answer, can easily be replaced by statements, since that is essentially what they are. So, for example, New English Bible translates “This, O Lord, is what I feared when I was in my own country.”

Since in so many languages a term for “prayer” suggests “petition,” such a form would seem out of place in this context, for it is a complaint that Jonah is bringing to the Lord. Therefore it may be more appropriate to say “so Jonah said to the Lord.”

Good News Translation is rather more literal than New English Bible in saying didn’t I say (similarly Jerusalem Bible “just as I said would happen”), where New English Bible has “this is what I feared.” The Hebrew noun used here is the same as in 3.6 and covers a wide area of meaning. It need not refer to a spoken word, though that is its most usual meaning. Just as the Hebrew verb ʾamar “to say” can often mean “to think,” so here “word” can stand for “thought,” and so by implication “fear.”

Good News Translation uses home in this verse in its wider sense of “homeland” rather than “house.” Before I left home corresponds to the more literal translation of Revised Standard Version, “when I was yet in my country.”

As in other instances, the direct address LORD must be expressed in some languages as “My Lord.”

The clause before I left home may be more appropriately placed at the beginning of the direct discourse or at least immediately following the expression of direct address; for example, “before I left home, didn’t I say that this is just what you would do?”

The indirect discourse must be made direct in a number of languages; for example, “didn’t I say, ‘I know that you will change your mind’?” Because of the particular nature of the embedded direct discourse, it is necessary to alter the wording so as to represent what Jonah would have said prior to the actual events; otherwise, the direct discourse would be out of keeping with what Jonah could or would have said.

That’s why I did my best is an attempt to translate a difficult Hebrew verb that may be taken here in an adverbial sense, “at first” (so New American Bible “I fled at first”). The same Hebrew verb is translated “prevent” in King James Version or Psa 119.147, 148, but the verb “prevent” no longer has the same meaning in English as it had when that translation was made. It is unlikely, therefore, that Modern Language Bible is correct in translating this passage: “This is why I fled to Tarshish to prevent it.”

New English Bible (also New American Standard Bible) uses a verb that attempts to recognize the temporal aspect of this Hebrew word by saying “to forestall it.” This does formal justice to the verb in the original, but is not so suitable to the situation in which Jonah found himself. As normally used in English “forestall” carries with it both the idea of foreseeing someone else’s action and of taking effective action to ensure that it does not take place. The element of anticipation is certainly present in Jonah’s flight in the direction of Spain, but it is only indirectly that his flight would have meant the sparing of Nineveh, since he then would not have been able to denounce it.

If one understands That’s why I did my best to run away to Spain as being better interpreted as an expression of haste (so Revised Standard Version), it is possible to render this sentence as “That is why I ran away to Spain as fast as I could” or “That is why I left for Spain as quickly as possible.” (It is impossible in some languages to translate literally “run away,” since Jonah went by boat, not by running.) If, on the other hand, one wished to suggest the intensity with which Jonah undertook to escape to Spain, one may translate “That is why I did everything I could to go to Spain.” It is rarely possible to translate literally “I did my best,” since one must qualify “best” in terms of some particular kind of activity.

Chinese Union Version arranges the text of this verse in a more logical order than most translations by first stating the reason for Jonah’s action, and then the action itself, “I knew that you were … therefore I made haste to flee….”

The second part of the verse indicates the degree of Jonah’s bitterness against God’s decision to spare Nineveh. The influence of Joel has already been observed in connection with 3.9a, which is a close parallel to Joel 2.14. Those words in Joel are immediately preceded by a confession of faith in God’s mercy in terms very similar to those used here. Parallel with the “Who knows?” expressed by the king of Nineveh in 3.9 is the I knew of Jonah in this verse. Jonah did not need to question, as the king did, whether God was capable of changing his mind and withholding punishment. He knew that God was too kindhearted to carry out the threat that the prophet had been commissioned to deliver (3.4), and that was the reason he had been reluctant to deliver his message in the first place. Jonah quotes here the confession of faith found in Exo 34.6, but not as a ground for thankfulness, but as a ground for complaint that God could not be counted upon to be consistent in punishing those who deserved to suffer. Accordingly, to understand this passage correctly, it must be seen as a biting touch of irony, or even of scorn, against a God who was too mild to lend his support to the prophet by destroying Nineveh in accordance with the commissioned word of prophecy. New English Bible hints at the irony by enclosing the words from Exodus in quotation marks, “a god gracious and compassionate, longsuffering and ever constant.”

There are a number of passages in the Old Testament that echo the wording of Exo 34.6. The closest approximation is Psa 86.15. The formula in Jonah is practically the same as in Joel 2.13, and varies from Exodus in reversing the order of the first two adjectives, and making no mention of “truth.” This shorter form, with the same order of words as in Jonah, is also found in Neh 9.17 and Psa 145.8. The shorter form, but with the same order as in Exodus and in Psalm 86, is given in Psa 103.8. So it is evident that the confession of Israel’s faith stated here in Jonah was a familiar one during centuries of her history. Only here is it used as a ground for criticism of God’s nature. The first two adjectives, loving and merciful, are used to describe God, not only in the passages already mentioned, but in 2 Chr 30.9; Neh 9.31; Psa 111.4. These two adjectives are applied in the Old Testament solely to God, with the possible exception of Psa 112.4, where some scholars understand the last line to refer to God (for example, Revised Standard Version), and others conclude that it refers to man.

You are a loving and merciful God may be rendered as “you are a God who loves people and is kind to them” or “you as God love people and show mercy to them.”

The phrase always patient corresponds to a Hebrew expression generally rendered in earlier translations as “slow to anger.” As well as in the passages just mentioned, it is used of God in Num 14.18 and Neh 1.3. In Prov 14.29; 15.18; and 16.32 it is used to describe human beings who are not easily roused to anger, but are even-tempered and patient.

Patient may be expressed both negatively and positively; for example, “you do not become angry quickly” or “you do not punish right away” in contrast with “you very slowly become angry with people” or “you put up with people’s badness for a long time.”

The words always kind correspond to two Hebrew words that are consistently rendered in Revised Standard Version as “abounding in steadfast love.” The translation of chesed as “steadfast love” is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew than the rather colorless kind of Good News Translation. In New English Bible the normal way of expressing this phrase is “ever constant,” though in Psa 86.5 another element in the Hebrew, that of love, is brought out by speaking of the Lord as “full of true love.” As far as possible, a translation of the Hebrew word chesed should do justice to the emphasis on love and on its constancy and loyal steadfastness. It has been defined by Wolff, page 52, to denote “kindhearted actions that, by spontaneous love and the faithful meeting of responsibilities, create or establish a sense of community.”

In order to do better justice to the meaning of Hebrew chesed, one can translate in this context “people can always trust you to be good to them.”

The final section of this verse, and always ready to change your mind and not punish, is an echo of 3.10. In New English Bible this is included within quotation marks along with the words quoted from Exo 34.6. The expression is not a quotation from that part of Exodus, however, and the terminology “always willing to repent of the disaster” is far from intelligible. It borrows some of the wording of 3.10, but does it far less effectively than Good News Translation. Much the same wording as in 3.10 is found in the Hebrew of Exo 32.14, but there it refers to Israel, not Nineveh.

It may be important to specify somewhat more clearly the relationship between change your mind and not punish. Since the latter is the result of the former, one can then translate “change your mind so as not to punish” or “decide not to punish.” The final part of verse 2 may therefore be expressed as “you are always ready to decide not to punish,” or “… change your decision so as not to punish,” or “… decide differently and therefore not punish.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

There is a problem involved in the introductory expression The LORD answered, since what follows is actually a question. Therefore it may be necessary to translate “The Lord answered Jonah by asking a question” or “The Lord asked Jonah a question in reply.”

What right do you have to be angry? may be expressed as “How can you justify being angry?” or “What excuse do you have for being angry?”

The Lord replies with a question like that addressed to Cain (Gen 4.6), “What right have you to be angry?” The Hebrew verb used here can mean “to do (something) well” (for example, 1 Sam 16.17), but it can also mean “to do right,” as in Isa 1.17; Jer 4.22. So here the sense seems to be “Are you doing right in being angry?” or, as in Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, “Are you right to be angry?” Bible in Basic English is close to Good News Translation with “Have you any right to be angry?” while the reasonableness, rather than the rightfulness, of Jonah’s anger is questioned in Chinese Union Version, “Is it reasonable for you to be as angry as this?” (compare Modern Language Bible, New American Standard Bible “Do you have good reason to be angry?”). Knox acknowledges in a note the uncertainty of the meaning here: “The exact force of the Hebrew idiom used here is uncertain. Some think it means ‘Hast thou good reason to be angry?’; others would translate ‘Art thou very angry?’ ” While Knox himself suggests “Why, what anger is this?” An American Translation prefers his alternative “Are you so very angry?” and New Jerusalem Bible has “Are you that deeply grieved?” This is no doubt the basis of New English Bible “Are you so angry?” the meaning of which is not clear at first sight. This treatment of the question is based on the meaning of the Hebrew verb in its sense of “to do (something) thoroughly,” as in Deut 13.14; 17.4, and has the support of the Septuagint. New English Bible‘s translation suits the similar question in verse 9 reasonably well but is not so suitable here as Knox‘s first alternative, which is supported by other ancient translations.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Just as the Lord arranged for a fish in 1.17, so he arranges for a plant to grow up and give added shelter to Jonah. The same verb is used in 1.17, here, and in the next two verses. The exact nature of the plant has been the object of much discussion, and various translations have been suggested, some based on etymology and some on ancient translations. Fauna and Flora of the Bible favors “castor oil plant,” pointing out the similarity between the Hebrew qiqayon and the Egyptian name for this plant. This is the translation found in Chinese Union Version, Mowinckel. Jerusalem Bible, as well as in the margin of Revised Standard Version and New English Bible. In New Jerusalem Bible the word “ricinus” is used to denote this same plant. An alternative suggestion, based on the Septuagint, is “gourd,” as in King James Version, Moffatt, An American Translation, Modern Language Bible, Revised Standard Version (New English Bible “climbing gourd”). New American Bible has “a gourd plant,” accompanied by a note stating that the Hebrew word “means here a wide-leafed plant of the cucumber or castor-bean variety,” and Modern Language Bible has a similar note. Knox, following the Vulgate, translates as “ivy plant,” while Bible in Basic English and Living Bible prefer “vine.” By using the general expression, a plant, Good News Translation recognizes that the exact nature of the plant is immaterial. There is not even any evidence that the author depicts it as climbing up the shelter; it could just as well have been standing independently. Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible are also content to have “plant” in the text, though in each case the marginal note supports “castor oil plant.” The plant is not mentioned anywhere else, so there is really no clear evidence by which to identify it.

The expression LORD God used here is an unusual combination, occurring mainly in the story of creation in Genesis 2 and 3 and in Chronicles, but otherwise not more than half a dozen times. It is not the same Hebrew expression as is translated “Sovereign LORD” in Good News Translation. The expression the LORD God may be expressed as “God who is the Lord” or “the Lord who is God.” It would be wrong to use an expression in which “the Lord” is simply an honorific title of God, equivalent to “sir God.”

The verb in the expression “should grow up” (New English Bible) may either be understood as the simple form, with the plant as subject, or the causative, with God as subject; the form is the same.

As a causative the verb made a plant grow up may be expressed as “the Lord God caused a plant to grow up.” Over Jonah may be “above Jonah.” It is important to avoid an expression that would mean that the plant covered Jonah; in fact, it is better in some instances to translate the first part of verse 6 as “the Lord God made a plant grow up so as to shade Jonah.”

According to Revised Standard Version the plant grew up “to save him from his discomfort.” This last word translates the same Hebrew word as is found in 3.8, 10 and 4.1. There the word refers to the evil behavior of the people of Nineveh, the disaster that God decided not to inflict on them, and the displeasure felt by Jonah in view of God’s mercy. So here the word may refer to Jonah’s discomfort or his “distress” (New English Bible), in other words, his evil situation. This is expressed in a positive way in Good News Translation, so that he would be more comfortable. But in view of the use of the same word in verse 1 with reference to Jonah, it may mean “to release him from his bad mood” (compare Jerusalem Bible “and soothe his ill-humor”), especially in view of the third person suffix.

So that he would be more comfortable may be expressed in this context as “so that he would not be so hot.” Such an expression may, however, have a double meaning, referring not only to the heat of the sun upon him but to his own heated anger, thus suggesting a reference to 4.1.

There is no justification for the additional clause at the beginning of the verse in Living Bible “and when the leaves of the shelter withered in the heat,” since the Hebrew neither states nor implies this.

The result was as might be expected. Jonah was extremely pleased with the plant. This is more forceful than New English Bible, “Jonah was grateful for the gourd.” The construction here is similar to that of 1.16, “feared with a great fear.” So here, “rejoiced with a great joy” (compare Matt 2.10 Revised Standard Version). The expression Jonah was extremely pleased with the plant must be inverted in some languages to read “The plant caused Jonah to be very happy indeed” or “The plant made Jonah extremely happy.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Unlike Moses and Jeremiah, who protest against the mission with which they are entrusted, Jonah simply indicates, by his actions rather than his words, his refusal to obey. Amos claimed that when the prophets were commissioned with God’s message, they could not but proclaim it (3.8), but Jonah attempts to escape, like a deserter.

The conjunction however is particularly important at this point, since it marks the contrast between God’s command and Jonah’s decision to do something quite different. Sometimes this adversative emphasis can be indicated simply by an introductory conjunction such as “but.” In other instances it may be necessary to reinforce this contrast by saying “but in contrast with this” or “but on the contrary.”

According to King James Version Jonah “rose up to flee,” since the verb used here is the same as in verse 2; so here set out is mentioned, and Good News Translation arrives at the sense by translating the first occurrence as set out in the opposite direction. He had been told to go east, so instead he tries to go as far as possible in a westerly direction, in order to avoid carrying out God’s command. Tarshish is rendered as Spain in the other two occurrences in this verse in Good News Translation. The reader is likely to have a clearer idea of where Spain is rather than to be able to identify Tarshish. Just where Tarshish was located is not known, but it is generally identified with a place on the coast of Spain. By introducing the verse with the words “But Jonah was afraid to go,” Living Bible misrepresents the thought of the writer. The Hebrew does not indicate this, and it contradicts 4.2.

It may not always be easy to render the expression the opposite direction, for the term opposite involves rather complex relationships. Therefore one may need to translate “he did not set out toward Nineveh, but he went in a direction away from Nineveh” or “rather than going toward Nineveh, he went away from Nineveh.”

To get away from the LORD may be rendered simply as “to escape from the Lord,” but it may also be necessary in certain instances to describe Jonah’s intent as “to go to a place where the Lord would not be.” Such an expression highlights the futility of what Jonah was attempting to do, since he later declares that the Lord is the God of heaven, who made both the land and the sea. It is this very contradictory situation that the author of the book of Jonah apparently wished to emphasize.

He “went down to Joppa” (New English Bible) because that town, the modern Jaffa, was a port on the coast of the Mediterranean (see Acts 9.36). If the difference in elevation between central Palestine and the seacoast is not thought to be worth emphasizing, some such rendering as Good News Translation is sufficient. At Joppa he found a ship, but the verb masa here, as often, does not indicate the conclusion of a search for something lost, but simply coming across something by chance—as in the Chinese Union Version here (as also in Gen 4.14; 1 Sam 9.11).

The ship was about to go, in the sense indicated by the Hebrew participle denoting future action shortly to take place. The verb used here in Hebrew generally indicates motion towards the speaker or writer, but here in a direction away from the writer (compare Isa 47.5). There is no clear indication of the size of the ship in modern terms, but since its destination was Tarshish, it would have been large by the standards of those days. In fact, the expression “ships of Tarshish” was sometimes used to indicate large “ocean-going” vessels (Isa 2.16; 23.1, 14; 60.9; and elsewhere). As is clear later in the chapter, the ship was propelled by rowing, though it may well have had sails in addition.

In a number of languages it may be necessary to be specific with verbs of “going,” since the means of travel may have obligatory features. Therefore He went to Joppa may be best rendered as “he walked to Joppa,” for this was probably his means of travel. But in speaking about a ship about to go to Spain, it may be necessary to use a term applicable only to ships, for example, “to sail” or “to be rowed.”

About to go to Spain must be expressed in some languages as “which the sailors were preparing for sailing to Spain” or “on which people would soon be leaving for Spain.” It may be quite wrong to speak simply of “a ship about to go to Spain,” since the implication might be that the ship went to Spain on its own rather than under the direction of a helmsman and with the help of a crew.

He paid his fare. This is a more likely meaning than “he paid for the ship,” as claimed by some Jewish and a few modern commentators. Living Bible‘s “he bought a ticket” is unnecessarily anachronistic. The Hebrew word elsewhere always has the meaning of “wages” or “reward.”

And went aboard conveys the sense rather more naturally than King James Version “went down into it,” with its literal correspondence with the Hebrew verb “to go down.” Here again Living Bible brings additional factors into the translation that are not justified by the Hebrew, “and climbed down into the dark hold of the ship to hide there from the Lord.” For, after all, this verse states clearly that Jonah’s purpose in fleeing to Tarshish was to avoid the Lord’s presence there, and not simply in the ship.

With the crew is required to make clear the meaning of the Hebrew “with them” (so King James Version). New English Bible leaves this to be understood, and substitutes “to travel by it.”

A literal rendering of went aboard with the crew might suggest that he became a part of the crew. It may be necessary, therefore, to change the order somewhat and say “went aboard to sail to Spain with the crew.”

The Hebrew repeats “to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD,” and Good News Translation achieves this emphasis, but by varying the wording. At the beginning of the verse the purpose of Jonah’s journey to the west is emphasized, whereas at the end of the verse the expected consequence of this move is emphasized. So Jerusalem Bible: “decided to run away from Yahweh, … to get away from Yahweh.” The repetition may be intended by the writer to emphasize the irony of imagining that one could escape from God by any journey, however long. The New Jewish Version (New Jerusalem Bible) brings out the thought of Jonah’s prophetic commission by “from the LORD’s service … away from the service of the LORD.”

A literal translation of where he would be away from the LORD can be misleading, since it might suggest that Spain was a place where the Lord’s presence would not be felt or where the Lord would not be present. This final clause of verse 3 indicates the intent of Jonah and not an actual fact of the absence of the Lord, and accordingly it may be necessary to render the clause as “where he thought he would be away from the Lord” or “where he thought the Lord would not be.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The sailors are represented as foreigners of various nationalities (compare Ezek 27.8, 9), each with its own god, or gods, to whom the sailors pray or cry out (compare Psa 107.23-28). The English language is able to distinguish false objects of worship from the one true God by using lower case letters for the former and capitals for the latter, but this distinction is not evident when a passage is read aloud. The use of his own helps to make it clear that various gods are being referred to. Although this means of distinguishing them may not be possible in all languages, it is advisable to use the same word for both (see next verse and 2.1). As an Israelite, Jonah is represented as escaping from the LORD, the personal name of Israel’s God.

The sailors were terrified should be rendered in such a way as to indicate extreme fear. Such expressions of fear are often expressed as idioms; for example, “their stomachs were in their mouths” or “their hearts had dropped within them.”

Rather than use an elliptical expression, each one to his own god, following the phrase cried out for help, it may be preferable to combine the two into a single expression; for example, “each of the sailors cried out to his own god for help.” In some instances “to cry out for help” must be expressed as direct discourse; for example, “each one of the sailors said to his own god, ‘Help me’ ” or “… ‘Help us.’ ” In order to express the urgency of the prayer, especially in view of the tumult of the storm, it may be appropriate to translate “each of the sailors shouted to his own god in prayer, ‘Help us.’ ”

The objects thrown overboard are simply “things” in New English Bible or “goods” in the Bible in Basic English, but cargo in Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible. The word used is a very general one, so a general expression is suitable in translation (compare Acts 27.19).

The Hebrew does not actually speak of lightening the ship (King James Version, Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible), but literally of “making (something) light from upon them,” that is, those on board the ship. Hence Good News Translation in order to lessen the danger, or perhaps “to relieve their anxiety”; so Goldman: “make matters easier for them.”

To lessen the danger may be rendered as “so that they would not be in so much danger,” but in certain instances this must be expressed positively, “so that they would be safer.”

They threw the cargo overboard may be expressed as “they threw the cargo into the sea” or “what was in the boat they threw into the water.”

Another circumstantial clause brings Jonah back on the scene once more: Meanwhile, Jonah had gone below…. Some translators may prefer introducing this statement earlier, and so follow the chronological order of events. It would be possible to put the last sentence of this paragraph after verse 4, as for example, “So Jonah went below and was lying in the ship’s hold, sound asleep.” But where it now stands, the sentence serves as a link with the next verse. Stylistically, too, the present position has the advantage of raising the question in the mind of the reader, “But where was Jonah all this time?” Knox brings this out by “and what of Jonah?”

A literal rendering of Jonah had gone below can be misleading, since the term below may require the designation of what remains above. It may be necessary, therefore, to say “had gone below the deck.” In other languages it may be more appropriate to say “had gone down into the boat” or “had gone down near the bottom of the boat.”

Although there is no formal difference in Hebrew between the type of sentence in verse 4, “But the Lord sent…,” and Meanwhile, Jonah had gone below in this verse, the structure of the total context indicates that here we are dealing with a pluperfect (King James Version “was gone down”), one of several instances in Jonah of a “flashback.”

The word for “ship” in the last sentence occurs only here in the Old Testament and appears to imply a vessel that had a top deck. To speak of the hold (Chinese Union Version: “cabin”) may suggest a more elaborate vessel than this one would be; the word is used of any recess or corner, as of a cave (1 Sam 24.4) or a house (Amos 6.10; Ezek 32.23). Jonah was simply finding the most remote and comfortable place for going quietly to sleep, where he would not be disturbed (contrast the action of Jesus in Mark 4.38). The word for “sleep” used here is not the usual word, but signifies deep sleep, often brought on supernaturally (see Gen 15.12; 1 Sam 26.12). The Septuagint translates the verb as “snore” here and in verse 6—the only two occurrences of the word in the Bible.

Sound asleep may be rendered as “slept hard,” but it also may be expressed in terms of the difficulty involved in waking such a person; for example, “he slept so that no one could easily wake him” or “he slept so it was difficult to cause him to awaken.” The same concept may also be expressed somewhat idiomatically: “he was so much asleep his mind had left him” or “even his spirit was sleeping.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The indirect discourse in 10b must often be changed to direct discourse; for example, “Jonah went on to tell them, ‘I am running away from the Lord.’ ” In many languages, however, one cannot speak of “the Lord,” for the relationship between a person and his Lord is an obligatory relationship that must be expressed as “my Lord” or even “the Lord of all people.” In this context, however, it would seem more appropriate for Jonah to speak of “my Lord,” since he is not assuming that Yahweh is the Lord of these particular sailors.

A literal rendering of running away from could suggest that the Lord was somehow chasing after Jonah. It is important to avoid such an implication, and perhaps this can be done in some instances by saying “I am trying to escape from the Lord,” or perhaps “I am going to a place where the Lord cannot see me.”

The indirect discourse in 10b must often be changed to direct discourse; for example, “Jonah went on to tell them, ‘I am running away from the Lord.’ ” In many languages, however, one cannot speak of “the Lord,” for the relationship between a person and his Lord is an obligatory relationship that must be expressed as “my Lord” or even “the Lord of all people.” In this context, however, it would seem more appropriate for Jonah to speak of “my Lord,” since he is not assuming that Yahweh is the Lord of these particular sailors.

A literal rendering of running away from could suggest that the Lord was somehow chasing after Jonah. It is important to avoid such an implication, and perhaps this can be done in some instances by saying “I am trying to escape from the Lord,” or perhaps “I am going to a place where the Lord cannot see me.”Here again the text causes some problems, which are dealt with differently by different translators.

The first part of the verse, The sailors were terrified, does not relate very closely to what precedes. Why should the sailors be terrified because Jonah tells them that he worships the maker of the sea and the dry land? Were they afraid that, in spite of their innocence, they too would now be involved in the punishment for his crime? The word “fear” or “be terrified” is the same as that which Jonah has just used for worship. In other words, the author is contrasting the genuine awe of the heathen sailors, who were aware that the storm was sent by Jonah’s God, with the merely nominal or conventional confession of faith on the part of the Hebrew Jonah. The sailors are already said to have been afraid in verse 5, but here the description is intensified, which justifies New English Bible here, “were even more afraid.” The form the Hebrew takes is “feared with a great fear.” This linking of a noun similar in form to a verb is known as “cognate accusative” and is often used in Hebrew to add strength to the verb itself; for example, Zech 1.14; Isa 66.10; Psa 14.5.

If the text of Good News Translation is arranged in the order of the Hebrew, the result would be The sailors were terrified, and said to him, “That was an awful thing to do!” (They knew) he was running away from the LORD. Jonah went on to tell them. But Good News Translation has been rearranged in a more logical order, to indicate the sequence of cause and effect. This one verse in Hebrew has three occurrences of the word ki, which, as noted in verse 2, can have the meaning of either “for” or “that.” This is brought out clearly in Revised Standard Version: “For … that … because….” In other words, there is here a double flashback, answering two successive questions:

(a) Why did the sailors exclaim as they did?
Because they knew Jonah was fleeing from the LORD.
(b) How did they know this?
Because Jonah had already told them.

Since this final sentence is required to give the reader the clue to the behavior of the sailors, Good News Translation places it at the beginning of the verse and at the same time supplies an indication of when Jonah’s explanation occurred. In other word, his confession is taken to be a continuation of his speech in verse 9, hence went on to tell them. There is, however, no indication in the Hebrew of the time when Jonah disclosed his “business” (verse 8) or his reason for being on the ship, so the treatment in New English Bible is quite as legitimate, with its insertion of “already” and its use of the pluperfect “had told.” In any event, it was this disclosure on Jonah’s part that led the sailors to exclaim as they did (compare Gen 3.13): “That was an awful thing to do!” with specific reference to Jonah’s attempt to flee from God (so also Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt, Zürcher Bibel).

On the other hand, the words of the sailors can be taken as a question, as in New English Bible, “What can you have done wrong?” implying their concern to know what induced Jonah to attempt to flee. This is also the force of the footnote in Good News Translation, “Why did you have to run away like that?” Living Bible, Luther 1984, Jerusalem Bible, Chinese Union Version also suppose that the sailors are asking a question. The Hebrew text, however, does not offer an answer to such a question, and it is better to treat the words as an exclamation. Mwkl considers the last sentence to be an addition to the text, arising out of a misunderstanding of the verb “knew,” which it interprets as “perceived.” There is no textual evidence in favor of the supposition that the last part of the verse is a later addition, brought in to account for the preceding sentence.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The first part of verse 2 is identical with the first part of 1.2. The second part is interpreted by Good News Translation as recommissioning Jonah in essentially the same way as at the beginning of the book, namely, by proclaiming the message I have given you. But the Hebrew participle may be taken as referring (1) to the past, as in the Septuagint, or (2) to the present, as in the Vulgate, or (3) to the future, as in the Syriac. In fact, very few modern translations apart from Good News Translation—only Bible in Basic English, Jerusalem Bible (contrast Bible de Jérusalem), and Living Bible—suggest a repetition of the message already given. If this were the meaning, another form of the verb would be more probable, and since a specific message (for example, in the form met with in such prophetic outbursts as the book of Nahum) is not found at the beginning of chapter one, it is perhaps better to follow the kind of wording found in Revised Standard Version or New English Bible and to assume an indefinite tense, or one that might be rendered as “that I am giving you.”

Unlike most translations, Good News Translation avoids a literal rendering of the Hebrew (for example, Revised Standard Version “proclaim to it…”) and specifies the people of Nineveh as the recipients of God’s message. New English Bible is evidently aware of the problem but does not clarify the meaning. Two earlier translations both avoid the use of “it,” namely Moffatt, “and proclaim there what I will tell you” (so the Septuagint), and Chinese Union Version, “proclaim to its inhabitants the message I give you.”

For the rather unusual apposition Nineveh, that great city, note the discussion under 1.2.

The verb rendered proclaim suggests a formal type of announcement, the type of proclamation, for example, that might be given by an official messenger. This suggests that the message itself is important, and it may actually be necessary in some languages to redistribute some of the meaning of proclaim by indicating the nature of the message; for example, “speak to the people the important message I have given you.”

In a number of languages one does not speak of “a message being given,” and therefore it may be necessary to say “the message that I have spoken to you.” On the other hand, a more satisfactory equivalent may be simply “my words,” that is to say, the last part of verse 2 may be rendered as “announce to the people my words” or “… what I have said.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .