In verse 9 the king links the threat that Jonah had uttered in verse 4 with the behavior of the people of Nineveh that had caused that threat to be made. In other words, he suggests that the destruction of Nineveh can be averted by the people’s repentance, although in verse 4 the destruction was not linked with any conditions. In this respect, the person whose words come closest to those of the classical prophets is not Jonah, but the king, as can be seen by comparing this verse with Jer 25.5; 35.15; Zech 1.4; and particularly Jer 26.3, where God’s willingness to relent is linked, as in these two verses, with reformed behavior on the part of Israel. The opening words of this verse look, in fact, like a quotation from Joel 2.14. The expression Perhaps God will change his mind represents the Hebrew idiom “Who knows?” followed by two verbs both used of human repentance. The same idiom, again with the force of “perhaps,” occurs in 2 Sam 12.22 and Est 4.14.

The first of the two verbs that follow (“turn and relent” An American Translation) is redundant (compare Jer 4.28), as can be seen from a comparison with verse 10, where only the second occurs and is translated “changed his mind.” The first verb occurs often in the prophets, especially in Jeremiah, in the sense of “repent,” but it can often bear the adverbial meaning “again, once more,” as in Judges 19.7. Against that meaning here is the fact that there is no repetition involved in God’s relenting and sparing the people of Nineveh. The use of the verb “repent” by King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, New American Bible, and others, with God as subject, may well raise problems in the mind of the reader, who will naturally think of that word as being confined to human activity. This Hebrew verb occurs with God as subject in Gen 6.6, 7, and in fact more frequently than with a human subject, approximately 32 occurrences out of a total of about 40. From this it is clear that “repent” needs to be replaced by such a verb as “relent” (so Moffatt, An American Translation, Knox, Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Modern Language Bible, New American Standard Bible, New Jerusalem Bible) or “change one’s mind.” An interesting passage for the study of this verb is 1 Samuel 15, particularly verses 11, 29, and 35, where the verb is translated each time in Revised Standard Version as “repent,” though it is stated there that “repentance” is a human rather than a divine activity (compare Num 23.19).

The concept of possibility expressed in the adverb Perhaps must be expressed in some languages as a clause; for example, “It may happen” or “It is possible that.”

A literal translation of change his mind is misleading in a number of languages, for it would suggest “exchanging his mind,” that is to say, substituting one mind for another. An equivalent may be “will think differently,” or “will decide differently,” or even “will not do what he has said he will do.”

The consequence of God’s “changing his mind” is seen by the king to be that he will stop being angry, or more literally, as in Revised Standard Version, “turn from his fierce anger.” This expression is used also in Exo 32.12 (one of the passages referring to God’s “relenting” or “changing his mind”); Num 25.4, and many other passages in the Old Testament. In fact, “fierce anger” is a bound phrase in biblical Hebrew, in which apart from one or two textually dubious passages, the first of the two elements never occurs except with a word for God’s anger, and about 30% of the occurrences include the verb “turn away from,” as here.

The possibility expressed by Perhaps may need to be repeated; for example, “It may be that he will stop being angry.” Stop being angry may be expressed as “no longer be angry.”

In a number of languages there are a variety of words to express “anger.” Some of these may suggest unjustified wrath or anger, and others may indicate by their connotations that a measure of anger or hostility has a reason or justification. It is this latter type of term that is needed in this context.

The statement concerning the people not dying must be made more explicit in some languages; for example, “and will not die.” Since, however, there is an implied causative possible death, it must be expressed in some languages as “and so we will not be caused to die” or “and so he will not cause us to die.”

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 .

At this point, the sailors have decided that the “human sacrifice” of Jonah is the only way to stop the storm, and that he must therefore be thrown into the sea, so they turn once again to prayer. This time, however, they pray to Yahweh, since they recognize that he must be responsible for the storm. The prayer is introduced by a particle that New Jerusalem Bible translates as “Oh, please, LORD,” and which is used in addressing God in Psalms 116 and 118, in Jonah’s prayer in 4.2, and in prayers by Moses, Nehemiah, Hezekiah, and Daniel. Apart from these prayers, it occurs only in Gen 50.17, where Joseph is addressed by his brothers.

In some languages the LORD will be rendered as the name “Yahweh.” However, in other languages the title the LORD will be used, and it may in some cases be necessary to indicate whose lord he is. It may then be necessary to mention Jonah; for example, “they cried out to the Lord of Jonah” or “… Jonah’s Lord.” It would not be appropriate to introduce at this point “their Lord” because this would assume an almost immediate conversion on the basis of their fears. Though in verse 16 the text suggests that the sailors promised to serve the Lord, this would probably not mean exclusive adherence to Yahweh. Similarly, in the expression O LORD it may be necessary to add the expression “of Jonah” to identify again just who this “chief” was.

The sailors’ prayer consists of three parts, of which the first two are practically synonymous and are represented by one petition in Good News Translation: don’t punish us with death for taking this man’s life! Revised Standard Version represents the first of the two sentences by “let us not perish for this man’s life.” They are praying that they will not be held guilty of murder for what they are about to do. New English Bible is not very clear in expressing the first petition: “do not let us perish at the price of this man’s life.” This is hardly a natural way of saying in modern English, “do not demand the loss of our lives in exchange for the life of this man,” which is presumably what is intended. The preposition used here in Hebrew is known as the beth pretii; see Gesenius-Kautzsch: “the price bring considered as the means of acquiring a thing.” Other examples include Gen 29.18: “in exchange for your younger daughter Rachel.” Perhaps the closest parallel in Hebrew to the usage here is 2 Sam 14.7; “so that we can put him to death for taking his brother’s life” (New English Bible), where benefesh occurs, in the sense of “in exchange for the life of,” as it does in Deut 19.21 and here. Note also Gen 18.28: “Wilt thou destroy the whole city for a mere five men?” (New English Bible), where the possible destruction of Sodom would be due to the lack of five righteous men out of the required fifty. New English Bible might have been clearer here if it had said “Do not let this man’s death be at the cost of ours,” though the meaning intended could be as in Watts, page 81: “The sailors do not want to protect Jonah against God’s wrath at the risk of their own lives.”

The second of the two sentences, which are combined in Good News Translation, is represented in Revised Standard Version by “and lay not on us innocent blood,” in which it follows King James Version. These words in the Hebrew are best understood as making explicit the first sentence of the prayer. It is not, of course, the blood that is innocent, but the person whose blood is shed, or in the case contemplated here, whose life is to be destroyed. For a prayer that resembles this one, in that the people appeal to God to spare them the punishment that might fall upon those responsible for the death of an innocent person, compare Deut 21.7, 8. Jeremiah, on the other hand, asserts that if he is put to death, those responsible will “bring innocent blood” upon themselves (Jer 26.15). In other words, God will hold them guilty of the murder of an innocent man. The principle of protecting “innocent blood” is set out in Deuteronomy 19, especially verse 10, where provision is made for the protection of one who kills another accidentally or without malice. This is the principle to which the sailors appeal here, in that they claim that if they suffer the death penalty for murder, they would be considered guilty, though actually innocent. In a situation like this, Jonah’s relatives would be in no position to avenge his death, but those responsible appeal to God, as the protector of justice, to see to it that they are not punished by him for taking measures designed to ensure the saving of life. So far as they are concerned, Jonah is no enemy against whom they have a grudge, and murder is certainly not their intention (Moffatt “punish us not for a murder”). Winding Quest merely develops the thought of the previous sentence with the idiomatic “don’t hold it against us.” In various ways, most translations agree with New Jerusalem Bible: “Do not hold us guilty of killing an innocent person” (similarly Jerusalem Bible and Knox).

But even this apparently straightforward sentence can be interpreted in more ways than one. Are they saying that, although Jonah is innocent, they nevertheless have no alternative but to sacrifice his life? Or are they saying that they cannot be to blame for killing an innocent man, since Jonah has been shown to be guilty by his own admission that he has offended Yahweh, as well as by the verdict of the casting of lots? On this understanding of the verse, the sailors are appealing to God not to punish them, since they are only innocent executioners of a wrongdoer and are obeying God’s orders.

Whether in these terms or in some other way, the first two elements in the prayer link up with the third, in which the sailors remind God that they are only acting in accordance with his revealed will. Possibly Good News Translation goes too far in suggesting that the sailors are blaming God for what has happened, rather than simply excusing themselves by claiming that the storm and what follows are part of God’s will and purpose. The word translated “set purpose” in New English Bible normally carries with it the suggestion of pleasure (compare King James Version, “as it please thee”), as in Hos 6.6, or where people are the subject, it may even be used in such a context as Gen 34.19, where Shechem is attracted by Dinah.

Punish us with death may be rendered as “cause us to die,” and taking this man’s life may likewise be rendered as “causing this man to die.” Only rarely can one speak of “taking life.”

In some languages it would be inappropriate to repeat O LORD after a second person pronoun such as “you.” The identification of “you” is perfectly clear in view of the direct address occurring in the previous sentence.

You … are responsible for all this may be rendered as “you are the one who has caused all this,” and it is your doing may be rendered as “this is what you have done,” but the two statements “you have caused all this” and “this is what you have done” may seem to be unnecessarily repetitious. A corresponding emphasis may be expressed by rendering these two statements as a single emphatic utterance, “You yourself are the one who has caused all this to happen.”

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 .

This verse picks up the thought at the end of the previous chapter, where the heathen sailors offer sacrifices and make vows. Here Jonah is represented as promising to offer such sacrifices, accompanied by words of praise, and as fulfilling the vows that he had previously made.

I will sing praises to you must be restructured in some languages by a redistribution of the various meaningful elements, for example, “I will sing songs that will praise you” or “… contain praises of you” or “I will praise you by my singing.”

Though in English the expression offer you a sacrifice presents no difficulty of understanding, in some languages a literal rendering might be misleading, since a term meaning “offer” might suggest not actually giving something but merely offering it with the implication of possible refusal or even withdrawal. Therefore it may be necessary to render I will offer you a sacrifice as “I will make a sacrifice for you,” or “I will give you a gift of a sacrifice,” or “I will worship you by killing an animal for you.”

The final sentence sums up the thoughts of a sufferer who has been rescued by the Lord, either from some natural calamity such as a storm, or from an illness. He confesses that this salvation or “deliverance” (Revised Standard Version) comes from the Lord. Here New English Bible uses “victory,” which is appropriate in many instances, particularly in the Psalms and in the latter part of Isaiah. In this context, however, salvation seems more appropriate.

In a number of languages one cannot speak of “salvation coming.” Only animate objects or vehicles may be regarded as “coming.” Therefore it may be necessary to restructure the final sentence of the poem to read “only the Lord can save” or “… can rescue.”

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 .

Hebrew sentences generally begin with the verb and then state the subject. Sometimes the subject precedes the verb for emphasis, but in this sentence But the LORD sent…, the change in order is due to a so-called circumstantial clause.

This is marked by But in Good News Translation and some other translations. The verb translated sent (Good News Translation), “let loose” (New English Bible), “flung” (Modern Language Bible), “unleashed” (Jerusalem Bible), implies a degree of violence and suddenness or unexpectedness. It is only used fourteen times in the Old Testament, and four of these are in this chapter (verses 4, 5, 12, 15). It is wrong to avoid the mention of God’s agency in sending the storm, as in Winding Quest: “out at sea they ran into a hurricane.”

It is sometimes quite impossible to speak of “the Lord sending a strong wind.” A verb such as “send” can be used in speaking of persons but not of physical events. Therefore it may be necessary to render the first part of verse 4 as “the Lord caused a strong wind to blow so that there was a storm.” In many languages there are relatively technical terms for a “strong wind,” but in some cases the equivalent is simply “violent storm.” In other instances it may be “a fast wind” or “a whipping wind.”

The phrase on the sea must sometimes be rendered as “against the sea” or “across the waves.”

The verb translated was in danger of normally has the meaning “think, plan,” and nowhere else in the Old Testament is it used, as here, with an inanimate subject. Moffatt, in fact, goes so far as to say “the ship thought she would be broken,” but such personification misrepresents the mind of the author. The personification of trees in Judges 9.8-15 and 2 Kgs 14.9 occurs in contexts where the allegorical nature of the material is clearly evident, but that is certainly not true here. Luther 1984 and An American Translation, by use of impersonal or passive forms, succeed in retaining the verb used in the Hebrew, but with no overt admission of a change in vowel points.

New English Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Revised Standard Version, by using the verb “threatened,” are able to retain the ship as the subject of an active verb, but the Hebrew verb in question does not normally bear this meaning. In English it can be used metaphorically without the reader being under the impression that the ship used threats to intimidate its passengers, but this may not be possible in other languages. Another possibility, close to Good News Translation, is New American Bible‘s “was on the point of….”

It is also possible to render in danger of as “was about to” or “might soon.”

Breaking up must be described more specifically in some languages; for example, “would break into many pieces” or “would be beaten by the waves into many pieces.”

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 .

As so often in Old Testament narratives, there is no specific mention of the order being carried out. But God saw what they did; he saw that they had given up their wicked behavior. God’s threat in verse 4 is thus seen to be a conditional one, depending on human response and behavior, as Gen 18.7, 8 makes clear. Presumably the result of Nineveh’s repentance could only be known for certain when the “forty days” of verse 4 had expired.

What they did must refer to the fasting, the wearing of sackcloth, and the earnest prayers of the people of Nineveh. It may be important to make this rather explicit by saying “God saw what the people of Nineveh were doing” or even “… how they had changed.”

Had given up their wicked behavior may be expressed as “were no longer doing sinful things” or “were no longer doing what was bad.” The verb translated here given up is the same as is used of God changing his mind in Verse 9.

Did not punish them must be expressed in some languages as “did not cause them to suffer” or, in a somewhat idiomatic form, “did not pay them back for their badness” (literally, “did not do it”).

The clause as he had said he would must be expanded somewhat in some languages because of the embedded direct discourse; for example, “as he had said, ‘I will punish them’ ” or even “as he had said through Jonah, ‘The city will be destroyed.’ ”

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 .

This verse recapitulates verse 12 in that, as a result of carrying out Jonah’s advice and throwing him into the sea, the storm ceases. The sea is personified here, since the word “raging” (New English Bible) is used elsewhere only of human beings or of God. So “the sea was no longer angry” (Bible in Basic English). Jonah makes no protest and submits to his fate.

In translating they picked Jonah up, it is important to avoid an expression that would suggest that Jonah had been lying down. It is preferable in a number of languages to say “they grabbed hold of Jonah” or “they took hold of Jonah” or “they took hold of Jonah and lifted him up.”

It calmed down at once must be expressed in some languages as a reference to the “waves,” therefore “the waves stopped at once.” But in a number of languages it is important to place the temporal expression first, for example, “and at once the sea became calm” or “… without waves.”

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 .

In the final verse of the chapter, the narrative is resumed from verse 17 of the previous chapter. The Lord gives an order to the fish: “and now, at the Lord’s bidding” (Knox), and the fish obeys. The idea of God speaking to an animal or a fish may seem strange, but the snake in the Garden of Eden is addressed by God in Gen 3.14, 15. Obediently, the fish proceeds to spew Jonah on the dry land. The verb used here is more accurately translated as “vomited” (Revised Standard Version) or “spewed” (New English Bible), or even “disgorged” (Modern Language Bible), than as spit, the verb used for the action described in Num 12.14; Deut 25.9; and elsewhere. On the other hand, the verb used here is found in Prov 23.8; 25.16, and the corresponding noun in Prov 26.11. The use of spit in the Good News Translation is prompted primarily by the more or less neutral connotations. The term “vomited” has unfortunate connotations, and for many “spewed” is old-fashioned. One of the principal difficulties with a term such as “spit” is that it might suggest that Jonah was only in the mouth of the big fish rather than in the stomach, as is suggested by 2.1. In many languages a term meaning “vomit” does not have the same unpleasant connotations that seem associated with the English term.

The shift between the poetry that ends in verse 9 and the beginning of verse 10 may often be marked by an additional line space, and in some instances by a more extensive transitional expression, for example, “after that” or “sometime later,” but the temporal transition should not suggest any long period of time.

As in so many instances of expressions involving commands or speaking, it may be necessary to place the content of the utterance in the form of direct discourse; for example, “the Lord ordered the fish, ‘Vomit Jonah up on the beach.’ ”

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 .