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 .

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 .