This verse summarizes God’s instructions to Jonah. It begins with a word that is translated in older versions as “arise” (Revised Standard Version). But the Hebrew verb qum is frequently used with a so-called “inceptive” force to mark the beginning of an enterprise or to indicate that the action required is to take place immediately; for example, Gen 19.14, 15; Judges 4.14; Exo 32.1, in all of which Revised Standard Version has “Up!” or “Arise!” In these places the person addressed is not necessarily lying down but is being urged to act immediately (see Isa 52.2 King James Version). So here one could say “Go at once to the great city called Nineveh”—a conventional formula going back to Gen 10.12. As suggested in the phrase “to the great city called Nineveh,” it may be necessary to reverse the order of Good News Translation‘s Nineveh, that great city. The more usual order in languages is to have the generic expression that great city occur first, followed by the more specific name Nineveh; for example, “to the great city which is Nineveh,” or simply “to that great city, Nineveh.” If the phrase “great city” is placed after the term Nineveh, it may be necessary to employ a relative clause; for example, “to Nineveh, which is a great city.”

On reaching Nineveh, Jonah is to “denounce it” (New English Bible) or speak out against it. That is to say, he is to proclaim God’s message of judgment against Nineveh. He is to do so because the evil of the city is staring God in the face (compare New English Bible). The nature of Nineveh’s evil is not disclosed. The language here is similar to that of Gen 18.20, 21 with regard to Sodom and Gomorrah, which were noted for their wickedness.

Speak out against it may be difficult to render satisfactorily in some languages. It may even be necessary to use a form of direct discourse; for example, “say to them, ‘You are guilty’ ” or “declare, ‘You have sinned very much.’ ” In some cases an idiomatic expression may be employed; for example, “hang great blame upon it” or “declare that the people there are covered with guilt.”

The word ki in the Hebrew is open to more than one interpretation. It can mean “that,” introducing a noun clause, or it can mean “for, because.” At first sight it would appear that Good News Translation follows neither of these courses, but the second is in fact implied by the punctuation. Most translators render the Hebrew in the same way as Good News Translation (compare Revised Standard Version, New English Bible), but Jerusalem Bible (so also Moffatt Moffatt) renders the word as “that”: “inform them that their wickedness has become known to me,” though “inform” weakens the element of proclamation in the original. Living Bible has “It smells to highest heaven,” which is vivid but hardly justified as a translation. The Hebrew changes from third singular against it to third plural “their wickedness,” as expressed in New American Bible (New American Bible) and Revised Standard Version, but this does not need to be brought out in a translation. New English Bible avoids this by using “its” with reference to Nineveh, and Good News Translation makes explicit the fact that “their” refers to its people. The literal rendering in Revised Standard Version suggests, as does the Hebrew, that God is watching from up in heaven what takes place down on earth.

I am aware may be rendered merely as “I have seen” or “I know.” Somewhat greater force may be expressed in some languages by inverting the subject and object, for example, “the wickedness of its people has struck my eyes.”

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 .

All persons and animals must wear sackcloth, with its inclusion of the animals in the outward signs of penitence, sounds even stranger than the order for the animals to fast. The same thought is to be found in Judith 4.10. The strangeness is avoided in some translations by the use of some such expression as “they” (New English Bible) or “everyone” Living Bible, but this does not convey to the modern reader the same impression as was made by the original on the first readers. Of course, some say that the expression “both man and beast” has accidentally been copied in verse 8 from verse 7, but an honest translation will either tell the reader this, as in Jerusalem Bible, or translate the present Hebrew text as in Good News Translation, Revised Standard Version, An American Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, and others. Taken literally the Hebrew text will also extend to the rest of the verse the association of animals with humans in the other signs of repentance. But it is legitimate to suppose that the writer had, by the second half of the verse, abandoned the thought of the animals.

It may seem contradictory to speak of persons and animals both “wearing sackcloth,” since animals would not normally be spoken of as “wearing clothes.” Therefore it may be necessary to say “all persons must wear sackcloth and sackcloth must be put on all animals” or “… tied on all animals.”

Good News Translation has the main break in the verse after the first clause, and then by saying Everyone must pray earnestly implies that human beings alone are indicated from this point onwards. New English Bible has the main break after the next clause, and then makes it clear that human beings alone are the subject in the last of the verse by saying “let every man abandon his wicked ways.” Here, as often, the word ʾadam “man,” in the first part of the verse, refers to persons of either sex, as suggested in Revised Standard Version. The use of the Hebrew word ʾish in the second sentence, Everyone, does not even exclude a reference to animals, since it has here a distributive force (compare Gen 15.10; Isa 53.6).

In some languages pray earnestly may be expressed metaphorically as “pray with one’s heart exposed” or “pray with true words.” In some instances the meaning may be expressed as “pray and mean what one says.”

The king is represented as being aware of the kind of behavior that required repentance if Jonah’s words were not to come true and the city was not to be destroyed: wickedness in general and violence in particular were to be stopped. New English Bible is more specific than Good News Translation in this respect, with its reference to “habitual violence” rather than simply his evil actions. This last expression represents the more literal “the violence which is in his hands” of Revised Standard Version. The reference to “hands” here is a clear indication that by this time the writer is not longer thinking in terms of animals, but is concerned with human beings.

In some languages it is quite impossible to speak of “giving up wicked behavior.” One may, however, “stop doing what is bad” or “stop being wicked.” The final expression, his evil actions, may be expressed as “being violent,” or “using violence against people,” or “doing harm to people.”

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 heathen sailors are unwilling, however, to save their lives at the expense of Jonah without at least trying some other remedy. So the narrator ensures that the tension mounts as the sailors exert themselves to try and reach the land. Possibly their intention is pictured in terms, at first at least, of setting Jonah on shore to clear the ship of its dangerous cargo. The verb for rowing is not used elsewhere in this sense, presumably because the Old Testament does not relate stories of events at sea. Normally the verb means “dig,” as in Amos 9.2. Moffatt has “dug in their oars.” In Ezek 27.8, 26 another verb for rowing is used. New English Bible here uses the idiom “to put back to land,” in which it resembles the Hebrew by having no object after “bring back” (compare King James Version and Revised Standard Version). Luther 1984 interprets the verb differently as “return.” The ship is evidently to be understood as the object.

Using the same idiom as in verse 11, the narrator describes how the storm was becoming worse and worse. Consequently their efforts meet with no success, and they got nowhere, an idiom that is no doubt clearer for native speakers of English than for other readers. Bible in Basic English makes the meaning clear, “were not able to do so,” as does New Jerusalem Bible with “but they could not.”

The relationship between “getting the ship to shore” and “rowing” must be expressed quite differently in some languages, since the means, namely, the “rowing,” is the focal activity, and the purpose is to get the ship to shore. Therefore one may restructure the first sentence of verse 13 to read “the sailors rowed with all their strength in order to try to get the ship to shore” or “… to cause the ship to arrive at the shore” or “… to the land.” The closest equivalent of rowing may be simply “paddling.” It is possible to explain the difference in a footnote, but this is usually not necessary.

The storm was becoming worse and worse must often be expressed as “the wind was blowing faster and faster” or “the wind was all the time blowing stronger.”

They got nowhere may be expressed as “they got no closer to land” or “they were as far from land as ever.”

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 .

God then asks Jonah the same question as in verse 4, but with the addition of about the plant, that is, on account of the disappearance of the plant. On that occasion Jonah was indeed angry, as is clear from 4.1. but here he is not so much angry as miserable, or bad tempered.

To be angry about the plant must be expanded somewhat as “to be angry because of what happened to the plant.” It is important not to imply that Jonah was angry at the plant itself but because the plant had withered and died.

Jonah did not reply to the question that was put to him in verse 4, but here he replies by asserting emphatically that he had every justification for being angry. Jonah’s response should be parallel to 4.4, but it may be very difficult to speak of “every right.” One may, for example, say “I’m completely justified in being angry,” or “I have a good reason to be angry,” or “my anger is completely reasonable.”

The words angry enough to die can be taken with a double meaning. One is the surface meaning, that his anger is sufficient to justify his request for death. The other meaning takes the words “even unto death” (King James Version) as an expression denoting the superlative (compare Moffatt and New English Bible, “mortally angry,” and Knox, “deadly angry”). The same expression as occurs here in Jonah is also found in a medieval letter written in Hebrew, also with the meaning “I was extremely angry.” It is difficult to do justice to both these senses in one translation, since by emphasizing the idiom expressing the superlative, the literal sense, angry enough to die, is likely to be concealed. The use of hyperbole by Jonah on this occasion is the more absurd when one takes into account the reasons for Jonah’s anger on both occasions: in verse 1, because he was humiliated by the sparing of Nineveh, and in verse 9, because he was inconvenienced by the withering of a plant.

It may be possible to combine the concepts of the intensity of anger together with Jonah’s suggestion of wanting to die (a reflection of verses 3 and 8) by translating “I am so angry that I want to die,” or “I am very, very angry and therefore prefer to die,” or “… want to die rather than live.”

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 .

Many persons have suggested that the final verses of the poem may have originally been independent of the main prayer and are simply a reflection on the psalmist’s situation after the crisis is over. The verb translated worship occurs in this form only in this verse and may have the sense “to retain a loyalty to.” The expression translated “worthless idols” is a figurative means of describing those objects as being nothing more than a fleeting breath. The same figure, but with the verb in a slightly different form, is used in Psa 31.6, and idols are frequently described as “emptiness.” Mowinckel has “deceitful illusions.”

If, as is suggested, worship is translated as “retain a loyalty to” or “remain loyal to,” the contrast between the first line and the second line of verse 8 becomes highly significant. On the other hand, if worship is rendered in the more usual fashion, it can be expressed as “pray to” (an implied contrast to what Jonah was doing in praying to the Lord), or as “bow down before” or “give their allegiance to.”

Worthless idols may be described as “idols that have no worth” or “… no value,” but a more meaningful equivalent may be “idols that can do nothing” or “idols that have no power,” or even “idols that are really nothing.”

One of the most controversial words in this psalm, from the point of view of the translator, is the word chesed, which is translated loyalty by both Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version. The former makes it clear that the loyalty in question is towards the Lord. But the variety of interpretations that are found in modern translations is clear evidence that it is not only the meaning of the word that is in doubt, but also whether it refers here to a divine or a human quality.

King James Version has “forsake their own mercy.” But does this mean the mercy they show to others or the mercy due to them from God? New American Bible evidently understands the word in the latter sense and translates “forsake their source of mercy.” Living Bible goes further in the direction of clarification with “have turned their backs on all the mercies waiting for them from the Lord.” In much the same vein, Modern Language Bible has “give up the grace that might be theirs,” with a footnote, and Jerusalem Bible has “forfeit the grace that was theirs.” Also implying that God is the source of this quality is the New Jerusalem Bible translation, “forsake their own welfare,” and Bible in Basic English, “have given up their only hope.”

Although there is no clear evidence, it seems likely that Moffatt emended the Hebrew with his translation “leave their real refuge.” But Snaith claims that such emendation is unnecessary, and that the same meaning can be obtained from a true understanding of the Hebrew word, so that “the meaning is that they forsake their real and true ground of confidence, that sure love of God who alone is constant and steadfast and sure.” This same interpretation of chesed as reliability or steadfastness underlies its use in Isa 40.6.

In contrast with this view of chesed as referring here to a quality displayed by God towards his worshipers is the interpretation of Good News Translation, have abandoned their loyalty to you, where in Revised Standard Version, “forsake their true loyalty,” the quality in question is displayed by man towards God. Somewhat earlier An American Translation had “forsake their piety,” while the recent New American Standard Bible has “forsake their faithfulness.” Mowinckel stressed the link between chesed and the covenant with the translation “abandoned their covenant obligations,” which still emphasizes man as the source of this quality, but a quality displayed towards other members of the covenant community rather than to God. A treatment of this problem that has probably influenced New English Bible in the same direction as we find in Good News Translation is that of A. R. Johnson: “They that pay regard to nonentities may abandon their devotion.”

A somewhat different treatment of the same Hebrew text understands the verb as expressing a wish: “if only those that worship idols might renounce their false worship!” This provides a good contrast to the following verse with its assurance of the psalmist’s continued loyalty to the one true God. This verse cannot with justice be regarded as the pious Jonah’s reflections on the contrast between himself as a true Israelite and the heathen sailors who had traveled with him, since it was they rather than Jonah who had displayed a deeper piety in a time of crisis.

If one understands the Hebrew word chesed as referring to an attitude or quality of God, one may translate the second line of verse 8 as “they have abandoned you, who alone can help them” or “they have forsaken you, who alone can show them mercy.” On the other hand, if one understands chesed as referring to an attitude or characteristic of people, one may translate, as in the case of Good News Translation, “are no longer loyal to you.” This may be equivalent in some languages to an expression such as “they are no longer your adherents” or “… your followers,” or even “… your people.”

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 .