The Hebrew or Greek which are translated into English as “sackcloth” are rendered into Chamula Tzotzil as “sad-heart clothes.” (Source: Robert Bascom)
Pohnpeian and Chuukese translate it as “clothing-of sadness,” Eastern Highland Otomi uses “clothing that hurts,” Central Mazahua “that which is scratchy,” Tae’ and Zarma “rags” (Source: Reiling / Swellengrebel), and Tangale as “torn clothes that show contrition on the body” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin). In the English translation by Goldingay (2018), “put on sackcloth” is translated as wrap on sack.
“In Turkana, a woman removes her normal everyday skin clothes and ornaments and wears rather poor skins during the time of mourning. The whole custom is known as ngiboro. It is very difficult to translate putting on sackcloth because even material like sacking is unfamiliar. The Haya, on the other hand, have a mourning cloth made out of the bark of a tree; and the use of this cloth is similar to the Jewish use of sackcloth. It was found that in both the Turkana and Ruhaya common language translations, their traditional mourning ceremonies were used.” (Source: Rachel Konyoro in The Bible Translator1985, p. 221ff. )
Click or tap here to see a short video clip showing what a sackcloth looked like in biblical times (source: Bible Lands 2012)
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
Good News Translation does not make it clear what the king of Nineveh heard about: (1) the message proclaimed by Jonah, (2) the repentance of the people, or (3) the decision that everyone should fast. The Hebrew is equally indefinite, since it merely says that the “word” (davar) reached the king. An American Translation is excessively literal here, with “when the thing reached the king of Nineveh,” leaving it to the imagination to wonder what this “thing” could possibly be. New English Bible‘s “when the news reached the king” fails to define the nature of the news, but it is most natural to suppose that the writer describes first in verse 5 the reaction of the subjects, and then goes on in the next verse to speak of the king’s response to Jonah’s message. Knox takes this verse as a development of the preceding one, with “nay, the king of Nineveh himself.” Living Bible is not justified in including the king among those mentioned in the previous verse, with its “from the king down, everyone….” So here in verse 6 Living Bible presumes that the king has heard Jonah’s message already, and the verse is taken to be an explanation of the action of the people.
In view of the obscure reference of the pronoun it, one may be justified in employing a clause referring to various aspects of what had happened, for example, “when the king of Nineveh heard about all that was happening.” In this way both the preaching of Jonah and the response of the people would be involved. It is quite likely that whatever was said to the king would include both elements.
In a narrative of this kind, it is not necessary to look for the name of a specific king. The very title “king of Nineveh” rather than “king of Assyria” is enough to show that the writer is not concerned with historical details. The description of his activity takes on a chiastic form: he abandons his throne (A), takes off his robes (B), puts on sackcloth (B), and sits, like Job, in ashes (A), as a sign of repentance. Seated on his throne and wearing his robes of state, he is the stock figure of a king, which makes his repentance all the more impressive.
Throne may be rendered as “his great chair” or “his important seat.” On the other hand, a description of the seat as a place of judging or of decision making may also be involved; for example, “the chair from which he gave orders” or “the seat where he judged.”
A literal translation of took off his robe might suggest completely undressing in public. A more satisfactory rendering may be “took off his robe of authority,” or even as in some languages “took off his king’s coat.”
Put on sackcloth is best rendered in many instances as “put on clothing made of sackcloth” or “… coarse cloth.”
In choosing a term for ashes, it is extremely important to distinguish between (1) hot coals and (2) ashes that are cold and have simply been scattered or placed in piles. Therefore sat down in ashes may best be rendered in many instances as “sat down where there were cold ashes.” One would certainly want to avoid any translation that would suggest a “hot seat.”
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 .
When word reached the king of Nineveh: The king of Nineveh heard about the message Jonah was announcing and he too believed that God was going to destroy the city in forty days.
3:6b
he got up from his throne: The king got up from his throne, the special seat that a king sits on to show his authority.
3:6c
took off his royal robe, covered himself with sackcloth: He also took off his royal robes, which he wore to show he was king, and put on sackcloth like the ordinary people had done, to show that he too had repented.
sackcloth: See note on 3:5c.
3:6d
and sat in ashes: It was a custom in that part of the world to sit on the ground in ashes to express sorrow. (See Job 2:13.)
Each of the actions in 3:6b–d was a sign that the king was repenting and humbling himself before God.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.