The third verse of chapter 1 began by saying “Jonah arose,” and the remarks made there apply here also. This verse begins in the same way but continues by saying that he set out, not in the opposite direction (as in 1.3) but in the direction of Nineveh, in accordance with the Lord’s instructions. The journey there is not described, and Jonah obeys without reply or question.

It may seem illogical in some languages to employ the order obeyed … and went, since the going to Nineveh would seem to be the way in which Jonah obeyed. Therefore it may be necessary to restructure this sentence to read “Jonah obeyed the Lord by going to Nineveh” or, as in some instances, “Jonah went to Nineveh and in this way obeyed the Lord.”

The second half of the verse, which describes how large Nineveh was, is inserted in verse 4 in New English Bible. Good News Translation treats this description as appositional to the mention of Nineveh. The construction used in Hebrew inserts the description as a parenthetical explanation: “now Nineveh was an immensely great city, three days’ journey across.” The form of this explanatory note and its insertion here give every appearance of referring to a city that was once of importance, but at the time of writing was no more than a ruin. The timelessness of the expression a city so large corresponds to the form of the Hebrew verb used here, which does not indicate whether Nineveh was previously larger and was now reduced in size, or whether at the time of writing it was regarded as a large city. The construction is the same as in Gen 3.1, “the serpent was more crafty” (New English Bible), which does not tell us anything about the period during which the serpent was crafty.

New English Bible calls Nineveh “a vast city,” in this way translating an expression that is a form of the superlative, literally “great to God,” so perhaps, “of superhuman size” (compare Jerusalem Bible “great beyond compare,” Moffatt “great, great city”). There is no justification for the Living Bible rendering “a very large city, with extensive suburbs.”

The superlative used here (King James Version “an exceeding great city”) is similar to what is found in Gen 23.6; 30.8; Exo 9.28; 1 Sam 14.15; Psa 36.7; 80.11. In all of these passages King James Version uses an expression denoting the superlative, following in most cases medieval Jewish commentators. The Oxford Hebrew Lexicon compares the usage here in Jonah to Acts 7.20, “a very beautiful child.”

The last part of the verse, that it took three days to walk through it, has presented difficulty for some translators, in view of the contradiction between this statement and the size of Nineveh as revealed by archaeology. The circumference of the ruins is about eight miles, and even if this were the length from one end to the other, it would not require as much as one day to cross the city on foot. Even if the suburbs are included (compare Living Bible), the city would not extend for anything like a three days’ journey. Khorsabad, which may correspond to Rehoboth Ir of Gen 10.11 and has the best claim to be considered a “suburb” of Nineveh, is only a dozen miles away.

King James Version‘s “of three days’ journey” is too indefinite to be clear to the reader, and Revised Standard Version improves this with “three days’ journey in breadth.” Whereas most modern translations, though using different phraseology, agree with Good News Translation in the meaning of this phrase, there are some exceptions. New American Standard Bible uses the indefinite expression, “a three days’ walk,” in accordance with the pattern set by King James Version. Modern Language Bible is no more definite in its text: “requiring three days’ travel,” but the footnote (“that is, to go through the complex of turns that made up the city and its extensive suburbs”) reads like an attempt to evade the clear meaning of the text. Living Bible also avoids the clear meaning of the writer by saying “so large that it would take three days to walk around it.” As already noted, the city is described in Living Bible as having “extensive suburbs,” so these are doubtless thought of as included within the city’s circumference. But the Hebrew text speaks of walking across the breadth of the city, and not around it, as is clear from verse 4.

A city so large that it took three days to walk through presents certain difficulties in translation, since there is no indication as to precisely who was walking through it. This statement can be best rendered as a type of general indication of size by saying “a city so large that a person would have to walk three days in order to walk across it” or “… through it.” Sometimes such an expression could be rendered as a condition; for example, “a person could go through the city if he walked for three days.”

In some languages there may be difficulties because of no clear distinction between “hamlet,” “village,” “town,” and “city.” In some instances only a rather generic term is used for any center of population, and the varying degrees of size are indicated as “a small village,” “a large village,” and “a very large village.”

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 begins by describing what happened when Jonah reached the large city of Nineveh. Jonah started through the city, that is, began to walk through it, but did not start to proclaim his message until he had walked one day’s journey, presumably not halfway to the other side. Only then did he proclaim his message: “In forty days Nineveh will be destroyed!” New English Bible, no doubt intentionally, uses the verb “overthrown,” to correspond to the verb used in Hebrew, which is the same as that associated with the destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen 19.21-29. It is also used in Jer 20.16; Lam 4.6, and generally God is the subject when the reference is to the destruction of a city, usually in some violent manner (compare Amos 4.11, and the imagery of God “overturning” Jerusalem in 2 Kgs 21.13). Winding Quest translates suitably, “this city will become a heap of ruins.” Nowhere else in the book is there a proclamation or announcement by Jonah, and we hear nothing more of him in this chapter.

Jonah’s only message to the people of Nineveh consisted of the unconditional assertion that only forty days remained before the total destruction of their city, or “within forty days Nineveh will have been overthrown.” The expression forty days is often used in the Bible as a round number; for example, Exo 24.18; 34.28; Num 13.25; 1 Sam 17.16; 1 Kgs 19.8, where most scholars believe that an exact period is not intended. It is clear from the mention here of Jonah’s single day’s journey, using the same kind of expression as in the previous verse, that the reference in verse 3 must be to the diameter of the city and not to its circumference.

It is frequently necessary to indicate clearly who are the persons who received the proclamation announced in verse 4. Therefore it may be necessary to say “he proclaimed to the people,” or “he announced to the inhabitants of the city,” or “… to those who lived there.”

No reason is given to the people for the threat of destruction and no alternative of repentance is offered. It is as though Jonah is only concerned to carry out his commission to the absolute minimum, and he seemingly has no concern for the well-being of those to whom he preached.

In a number of languages the method of destruction must always be indicated by a verb such as destroyed; for example “conquered by an enemy,” “destroyed by fire,” or “leveled by an earthquake.” The most generic expression may simply be “will not exist any longer.” In this context such a general statement may be preferable, for it would be reading a good deal into the text to suggest the specific way in which Nineveh would 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 .

Following the logical order of events, some, for example, Moffatt, would transpose 4.5 to stand here, since that verse describes how Jonah waited to see the outcome of his message.

But the order of the Hebrew is reasonable enough as it stands, since it immediately goes on to describe the reaction of The people of Nineveh to what they heard, namely, that they believed God’s message. There is nothing in the Hebrew to correspond to message (New English Bible “word”), but the word “believe” normally carries with it the implication that God has said something which is either believed as true or rejected as untrue. So also in Gen 15.6 Abraham believes God’s promise, while in 2 Kgs 17.14 the Israelites refuse to believe God.

The expression believed God’s message must sometimes be restructured as “believed what God had said through Jonah.” However, if in verse 2 one has used “my message,” it would be possible to employ in verse 5 “God’s message.” In some cases a verb such as “believe” refers primarily to people rather than to messages, and therefore it may be better to translate “believed God” in the sense of “believed what God had said.”

The Hebrew verb translated believe is generally followed by the preposition be, rather less frequently by the preposition le, and sometimes by a noun clause, as in Lam 4.12. Here it occurs with the preposition be, which has a great variety of meanings, mostly related to the English prepositions “in” or “by.” Gesenius-Kautzsch, section 119.1, translates this phrase as “to trust in (to cleave trustingly to) somebody or something.” There are two instances of this verb followed by le in the Old Testament (Deut 9.23; Isa 43.10) in which God is the object, as against nine followed by be (Gen 15.6; Exo 14.31; Num 14.11; 20.12; Deut 1.32; 2 Kgs 17.14; 2 Chr 20.20; Psa 78.22; and Jonah 3.5). The verb does not occur with God as direct object.

Whereas there is a difference in meaning between “believe God” and “believe in God,” there appears to be no corresponding difference in usage between the two Hebrew prepositions used with this verb. The verb “believe” means acceptance as true of what is stated by someone or something, such as a document. But to “believe in” or “put one’s trust in” indicates a deeper measure of reliance on, or faith in, the object of one’s trust. As an indication of the identity in meaning of the verb with these two prepositions, Deut 1.32 may be compared with Deut 9.23. In both passages the verb is translated “trust” in New English Bible and Good News Translation, and the meaning indicated by the context is the same in both passages, though the preposition is not the same. Again, in Psa 106.12, 24, the preposition varies, but the meaning is “believe” in both verses. On the other hand, in 2 Chr 20.20, where the same preposition be occurs twice after this verb, Good News Translation understands a difference in meaning between the first occurrence and the second, “put your trust in the LORD your God … Believe what his prophets tell you.”

The only conclusion to be drawn from this is that, where the usage varies so much from one passage to another, the translator must be guided by the context.

Here in Jonah there is a real difference between believed God’s message or “believed God’s word” (New English Bible) on the one hand, and “believe in God” (Jerusalem Bible and New American Standard Bible) or “showed faith in God” (Knox) on the other. There is nothing in the form of the Hebrew, or parallels elsewhere in the Old Testament, to indicate which is correct. That the writer would say of the people of Nineveh that they believed in God, might seem an overstatement, but such a meaning is at least a possible one in practically all passages where God is the object of this verb phrase. To quote J. D. Smart (page 889): “The Ninevites did not merely believe Jonah’s prediction to be true and repent in fear; they responded in faith to Israel’s God.” Compare A. Jepsen (column 327): “When Jonah proclaimed to them ‘Yet three (so the Septuagint) days, and Nineveh will be destroyed,’ the people of Nineveh did what Israel, and even Moses or Aaron were incapable of doing. They put their trust in God, and did so without the occurrence of signs and wonders such as preceded the statements in Exo 4.31; 14.31, but solely on the word of Jonah. The translation ‘they believed in God’ weakens the effect. It could be paraphrased as ‘they took the message seriously, as a message that really came from God,’ even though Jonah’s proclamation made no mention of God.”

The name of Yahweh is not used at this point, however, and is avoided in the rest of this chapter, which uses the more general term “God.” There is no justification for the translation in Living Bible, “they believed him,” referring to Jonah.

The last part of the verse in Good News Translation, to show that they had repented, does not correspond formally to any words in the Hebrew. These words simply make explicit for the modern reader what would be implicitly understood by the first readers of the books. A good translation often requires additions such as this, and in making such an addition, a translation is not to be judged as lacking in faithfulness to the original, since it is more faithful to the sense than a translation that leaves the reader wondering why the people of Nineveh wore sackcloth. There is, of course, no need to repeat the explanation in verse 6.

The phrase to show that they had repented, which identifies the purpose of both fasting and the wearing of sackcloth, should in some way be related to both of these events. It may be necessary, therefore, to introduce the final phrase by “they did all this to show that they had repented.”

An expression for fast may be simply “they went without food purposely.” It is very important to avoid a translation of fast that would suggest only the lack of food or a famine.

Since the decision made by the people of Nineveh was something that was no doubt communicated, it may be necessary in some languages to put this into the form of direct discourse; for example, “So they decided, ‘We must all fast….’ ”

A common equivalent for the expression from the greatest to the least is “including both the rich and the poor,” or “including those who command and those who obey,” or as in some instances “including those in the center of town as well as those who live in the outskirts,” or “from the shopkeepers to the beggars.”

Repented may be rendered in a number of languages as “turned away from their sins,” or “were extremely sorry for their sins,” or “resolved to sin no more.”

The word for “sackcloth” is one of the few that has come over to us in English in much the same form as in Hebrew, retaining its sound in Greek and Latin on the way. It was a coarse material, worn next to the skin, as is seen from 2 Kgs 6.30, where a king wears sackcloth as a sign of distress at his people’s suffering.

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 .

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 .

This verse repeats the substance of verse 5, but this time the decision that “everyone should fast” originates from the king. Here, He sent out a proclamation represents the causative form of the verb “to proclaim,” with an impersonal unspecified agent, followed by the verb “and he said.” In view of the causative element in sending out the proclamation to the people, it may be best to render the first part of this verse as “caused the people of Nineveh to hear a proclamation” or “he ordered men to proclaim to the people of Nineveh.”

Then the content of the proclamation is introduced by the phrase “By order of the king and his officials.” The inclusion at this point of the officials, or “great men,” resembles Dan 6.17, where the king’s seal and that of his nobles are both affixed to the stone over the mouth of the pit of lions in which Daniel was imprisoned. But this is more characteristic of a later period in the Old Testament. For the king to refer to himself in this way in the third person may be unnatural in some languages.

The subject and predicate relationships in This is an order from the king and his officials must be inverted in a number of languages; for example, “The king and his officials announce this order to you” or “… make this command.” Since, however, it is the king himself who caused the proclamation to be made, it may be necessary in a number of languages for the king to speak of himself in the first person; for example, “I the king and my officials command you….”

The ban on eating and drinking goes further in this proclamation than in the parallel passage in verse 5, since animals are included here, in two pairs: “Neither man nor beast, neither cattle nor sheep, shall taste anything.” The verb that follows is one that applies only to animals feeding, hence New English Bible “to graze.” The final prohibition in the verse, against drinking water, applies to both men and animals. Obviously the ban applies to any other liquid, too, with the force “they are not to drink anything.” In some languages, such as English, it is perfectly natural to use verbs such as “eat” and “drink” with no expressed object, as in Good News Translation, whereas in other languages the verb sounds incomplete without an object.

In view of the seeming duplication of commands, No one is to eat anything and all persons … are forbidden to eat or drink, it may be important to introduce or drink as simply “or even to drink anything.” In some languages, of course, eat or drink may be summarized simply as to “consume solid or liquid food.”

The classification implied in all persons, cattle, and sheep may seem extremely strange in some languages, for it would appear to leave out goats, pigs, and other domestic animals. It may therefore be better to reflect more closely the form of the Hebrew itself; for example, “no person nor domestic animal whether large or small shall eat anything.” Obviously only domesticated animals could be involved in such a command, since they would be under the control of persons who would make provision for their food. It would seem quite ludicrous in some languages to use a form for “animals” that would imply wild animals, since such a proclamation would either have no effect upon them or would be interpreted to mean that the king in some miraculous way was able to command the behavior of wild animals.

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 .

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 .

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 .