To say that Jonah was very unhappy about this is an understatement, in view of the context. The same idiom is found in Neh 2.10 (“they were highly indignant”) and 13.8 (“I was furious”), so Jerusalem Bible “Jonah was very indignant” is more satisfactory. New English Bible “Jonah was greatly displeased and angry” links together the two verbs that describe Jonah’s reaction, and so uses one expression to intensify the other. Good News Translation, on the other hand, suggests two successive stages in the development of Jonah’s feelings. (Compare New American Bible, “This was greatly displeasing to Jonah, and he became angry.”) In the use of the two verbs that occur in this verse, the writer echoes the wording of 3.9, 10, with their reference to God’s anger and displeasure at Nineveh, which had been replaced by his mercy.

Was very unhappy must be expressed in a number of languages as suggesting a change of state; therefore, “became indignant” or “became very much irked.” This may be expressed figuratively in some languages as “his stomach became bitter” or “his heart swelled up inside of him.” Anger may also be expressed figuratively as “his face became red” or “his skin flashed hot.”

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 .

Now for the second time (compare 2.1) Jonah prays to the Lord, but here the tone of the prayer is very different. This time he explains the reason for his anger at God’s merciful treatment of the people of Nineveh. The flashback employed here tells us for the first time the reason for Jonah’s attempt in chapter 1 to travel in the opposite direction instead of to Nineveh. The beginning of his prayer takes the form of a question, and the question form is retained in Good News Translation. But such rhetorical questions, which do not really expect an answer, can easily be replaced by statements, since that is essentially what they are. So, for example, New English Bible translates “This, O Lord, is what I feared when I was in my own country.”

Since in so many languages a term for “prayer” suggests “petition,” such a form would seem out of place in this context, for it is a complaint that Jonah is bringing to the Lord. Therefore it may be more appropriate to say “so Jonah said to the Lord.”

Good News Translation is rather more literal than New English Bible in saying didn’t I say (similarly Jerusalem Bible “just as I said would happen”), where New English Bible has “this is what I feared.” The Hebrew noun used here is the same as in 3.6 and covers a wide area of meaning. It need not refer to a spoken word, though that is its most usual meaning. Just as the Hebrew verb ʾamar “to say” can often mean “to think,” so here “word” can stand for “thought,” and so by implication “fear.”

Good News Translation uses home in this verse in its wider sense of “homeland” rather than “house.” Before I left home corresponds to the more literal translation of Revised Standard Version, “when I was yet in my country.”

As in other instances, the direct address LORD must be expressed in some languages as “My Lord.”

The clause before I left home may be more appropriately placed at the beginning of the direct discourse or at least immediately following the expression of direct address; for example, “before I left home, didn’t I say that this is just what you would do?”

The indirect discourse must be made direct in a number of languages; for example, “didn’t I say, ‘I know that you will change your mind’?” Because of the particular nature of the embedded direct discourse, it is necessary to alter the wording so as to represent what Jonah would have said prior to the actual events; otherwise, the direct discourse would be out of keeping with what Jonah could or would have said.

That’s why I did my best is an attempt to translate a difficult Hebrew verb that may be taken here in an adverbial sense, “at first” (so New American Bible “I fled at first”). The same Hebrew verb is translated “prevent” in King James Version or Psa 119.147, 148, but the verb “prevent” no longer has the same meaning in English as it had when that translation was made. It is unlikely, therefore, that Modern Language Bible is correct in translating this passage: “This is why I fled to Tarshish to prevent it.”

New English Bible (also New American Standard Bible) uses a verb that attempts to recognize the temporal aspect of this Hebrew word by saying “to forestall it.” This does formal justice to the verb in the original, but is not so suitable to the situation in which Jonah found himself. As normally used in English “forestall” carries with it both the idea of foreseeing someone else’s action and of taking effective action to ensure that it does not take place. The element of anticipation is certainly present in Jonah’s flight in the direction of Spain, but it is only indirectly that his flight would have meant the sparing of Nineveh, since he then would not have been able to denounce it.

If one understands That’s why I did my best to run away to Spain as being better interpreted as an expression of haste (so Revised Standard Version), it is possible to render this sentence as “That is why I ran away to Spain as fast as I could” or “That is why I left for Spain as quickly as possible.” (It is impossible in some languages to translate literally “run away,” since Jonah went by boat, not by running.) If, on the other hand, one wished to suggest the intensity with which Jonah undertook to escape to Spain, one may translate “That is why I did everything I could to go to Spain.” It is rarely possible to translate literally “I did my best,” since one must qualify “best” in terms of some particular kind of activity.

Chinese Union Version arranges the text of this verse in a more logical order than most translations by first stating the reason for Jonah’s action, and then the action itself, “I knew that you were … therefore I made haste to flee….”

The second part of the verse indicates the degree of Jonah’s bitterness against God’s decision to spare Nineveh. The influence of Joel has already been observed in connection with 3.9a, which is a close parallel to Joel 2.14. Those words in Joel are immediately preceded by a confession of faith in God’s mercy in terms very similar to those used here. Parallel with the “Who knows?” expressed by the king of Nineveh in 3.9 is the I knew of Jonah in this verse. Jonah did not need to question, as the king did, whether God was capable of changing his mind and withholding punishment. He knew that God was too kindhearted to carry out the threat that the prophet had been commissioned to deliver (3.4), and that was the reason he had been reluctant to deliver his message in the first place. Jonah quotes here the confession of faith found in Exo 34.6, but not as a ground for thankfulness, but as a ground for complaint that God could not be counted upon to be consistent in punishing those who deserved to suffer. Accordingly, to understand this passage correctly, it must be seen as a biting touch of irony, or even of scorn, against a God who was too mild to lend his support to the prophet by destroying Nineveh in accordance with the commissioned word of prophecy. New English Bible hints at the irony by enclosing the words from Exodus in quotation marks, “a god gracious and compassionate, longsuffering and ever constant.”

There are a number of passages in the Old Testament that echo the wording of Exo 34.6. The closest approximation is Psa 86.15. The formula in Jonah is practically the same as in Joel 2.13, and varies from Exodus in reversing the order of the first two adjectives, and making no mention of “truth.” This shorter form, with the same order of words as in Jonah, is also found in Neh 9.17 and Psa 145.8. The shorter form, but with the same order as in Exodus and in Psalm 86, is given in Psa 103.8. So it is evident that the confession of Israel’s faith stated here in Jonah was a familiar one during centuries of her history. Only here is it used as a ground for criticism of God’s nature. The first two adjectives, loving and merciful, are used to describe God, not only in the passages already mentioned, but in 2 Chr 30.9; Neh 9.31; Psa 111.4. These two adjectives are applied in the Old Testament solely to God, with the possible exception of Psa 112.4, where some scholars understand the last line to refer to God (for example, Revised Standard Version), and others conclude that it refers to man.

You are a loving and merciful God may be rendered as “you are a God who loves people and is kind to them” or “you as God love people and show mercy to them.”

The phrase always patient corresponds to a Hebrew expression generally rendered in earlier translations as “slow to anger.” As well as in the passages just mentioned, it is used of God in Num 14.18 and Neh 1.3. In Prov 14.29; 15.18; and 16.32 it is used to describe human beings who are not easily roused to anger, but are even-tempered and patient.

Patient may be expressed both negatively and positively; for example, “you do not become angry quickly” or “you do not punish right away” in contrast with “you very slowly become angry with people” or “you put up with people’s badness for a long time.”

The words always kind correspond to two Hebrew words that are consistently rendered in Revised Standard Version as “abounding in steadfast love.” The translation of chesed as “steadfast love” is closer to the meaning of the Hebrew than the rather colorless kind of Good News Translation. In New English Bible the normal way of expressing this phrase is “ever constant,” though in Psa 86.5 another element in the Hebrew, that of love, is brought out by speaking of the Lord as “full of true love.” As far as possible, a translation of the Hebrew word chesed should do justice to the emphasis on love and on its constancy and loyal steadfastness. It has been defined by Wolff, page 52, to denote “kindhearted actions that, by spontaneous love and the faithful meeting of responsibilities, create or establish a sense of community.”

In order to do better justice to the meaning of Hebrew chesed, one can translate in this context “people can always trust you to be good to them.”

The final section of this verse, and always ready to change your mind and not punish, is an echo of 3.10. In New English Bible this is included within quotation marks along with the words quoted from Exo 34.6. The expression is not a quotation from that part of Exodus, however, and the terminology “always willing to repent of the disaster” is far from intelligible. It borrows some of the wording of 3.10, but does it far less effectively than Good News Translation. Much the same wording as in 3.10 is found in the Hebrew of Exo 32.14, but there it refers to Israel, not Nineveh.

It may be important to specify somewhat more clearly the relationship between change your mind and not punish. Since the latter is the result of the former, one can then translate “change your mind so as not to punish” or “decide not to punish.” The final part of verse 2 may therefore be expressed as “you are always ready to decide not to punish,” or “… change your decision so as not to punish,” or “… decide differently and therefore not punish.”

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. et al. A Handbook on the Book of Jonah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1978, 1982, 1993. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The introductory adverbial expression Now, then can rarely be translated literally, since “now” would refer to the immediate time and “then” would refer to a subsequent time or perhaps a prior time. Though in English both of the adverbial expressions are temporal, they actually suggest a causal relationship; for example, “Therefore,” or “As a result of all this,” or even “So.”

I am better off dead than alive may be expressed as “to be dead is better for me than to be alive” or “if I were dead, it would be better for me than for me to be alive.” Jonah feels that his victory has been achieved at the cost of the satisfaction he would have felt at seeing the destruction of Nineveh. So he asks the Lord, “take my life” (New English Bible), since it is better to be dead than alive. The word used for “life” is the same Hebrew word as in 2.7, and it occurs again later in this chapter.

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 .

There is a problem involved in the introductory expression The LORD answered, since what follows is actually a question. Therefore it may be necessary to translate “The Lord answered Jonah by asking a question” or “The Lord asked Jonah a question in reply.”

What right do you have to be angry? may be expressed as “How can you justify being angry?” or “What excuse do you have for being angry?”

The Lord replies with a question like that addressed to Cain (Gen 4.6), “What right have you to be angry?” The Hebrew verb used here can mean “to do (something) well” (for example, 1 Sam 16.17), but it can also mean “to do right,” as in Isa 1.17; Jer 4.22. So here the sense seems to be “Are you doing right in being angry?” or, as in Moffatt, Jerusalem Bible, “Are you right to be angry?” Bible in Basic English is close to Good News Translation with “Have you any right to be angry?” while the reasonableness, rather than the rightfulness, of Jonah’s anger is questioned in Chinese Union Version, “Is it reasonable for you to be as angry as this?” (compare Modern Language Bible, New American Standard Bible “Do you have good reason to be angry?”). Knox acknowledges in a note the uncertainty of the meaning here: “The exact force of the Hebrew idiom used here is uncertain. Some think it means ‘Hast thou good reason to be angry?’; others would translate ‘Art thou very angry?’ ” While Knox himself suggests “Why, what anger is this?” An American Translation prefers his alternative “Are you so very angry?” and New Jerusalem Bible has “Are you that deeply grieved?” This is no doubt the basis of New English Bible “Are you so angry?” the meaning of which is not clear at first sight. This treatment of the question is based on the meaning of the Hebrew verb in its sense of “to do (something) thoroughly,” as in Deut 13.14; 17.4, and has the support of the Septuagint. New English Bible‘s translation suits the similar question in verse 9 reasonably well but is not so suitable here as Knox‘s first alternative, which is supported by other ancient translations.

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 noted in connection with 3.5, some (for example, Moffatt) would transpose this verse to follow 3.4. But in spite of the grammatical form, which suggests that the events in this verse follow directly on 3.4, the author may here be using once again the technique of the flashback noticed in earlier chapters (for example, 1.10). The reason for introducing this statement here rather than earlier in the narrative, which would be its logical position, may have been the link between the shelter that Jonah makes for his own protection and the similar action on God’s part described in the next verse. In any case, this verse would be needed as an introduction to verse 6.

If verse 5 involves a flashback, the verbs need to be understood as pluperfects, “Jonah had gone out … He had made….” Grammatically the Hebrew is of the same form as in 1.17, where the meaning of the first verb is also pluperfect.

In a high percentage of languages east is expressed simply as “in the direction of the rising sun,” or even “toward the sun,” or “toward the morning sun.”

The significance of Jonah’s sitting down on the east side of the city may lie in the fact that he had approached it from the west, delivered his message, and then continued through to the far side. Perhaps, however, there is an allusion here to the east wind mentioned in verse 8. The author presumably expects Jonah to be far enough to the east of the city to avoid being involved in any disaster that might overtake it while he waited to see what would happen to Nineveh.

There is a serious contradiction in some languages in translating verse 5 literally, for it would suggest that Jonah sat down and then made a shelter for himself. It would be better, therefore, in a number of languages to translate “Jonah went out east of the city; there he made a shelter for himself and sat down in its shade, waiting to see….”

The nature of the shelter that Jonah constructed is not described, but presumably it was something quite fragile and easily constructed. The word is the same as that which occurs in Isa 1.8 and in the regulations for the Festival of Shelters in Lev 23.42, 43. In a number of languages the closest equivalent of shelter is the type of temporary shelter often built in fields as protection against the noonday sun or as a place where persons may remain while guarding a harvest, equivalent to what is called in English a “lean-to.”

Sat in its shade may simply be rendered as “sat beneath it” or “sat protected by it.”

The addition of “sulking” in Living Bible is not justified in terms of the text.

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 .

Just as the Lord arranged for a fish in 1.17, so he arranges for a plant to grow up and give added shelter to Jonah. The same verb is used in 1.17, here, and in the next two verses. The exact nature of the plant has been the object of much discussion, and various translations have been suggested, some based on etymology and some on ancient translations. Fauna and Flora of the Bible favors “castor oil plant,” pointing out the similarity between the Hebrew qiqayon and the Egyptian name for this plant. This is the translation found in Chinese Union Version, Mowinckel. Jerusalem Bible, as well as in the margin of Revised Standard Version and New English Bible. In New Jerusalem Bible the word “ricinus” is used to denote this same plant. An alternative suggestion, based on the Septuagint, is “gourd,” as in King James Version, Moffatt, An American Translation, Modern Language Bible, Revised Standard Version (New English Bible “climbing gourd”). New American Bible has “a gourd plant,” accompanied by a note stating that the Hebrew word “means here a wide-leafed plant of the cucumber or castor-bean variety,” and Modern Language Bible has a similar note. Knox, following the Vulgate, translates as “ivy plant,” while Bible in Basic English and Living Bible prefer “vine.” By using the general expression, a plant, Good News Translation recognizes that the exact nature of the plant is immaterial. There is not even any evidence that the author depicts it as climbing up the shelter; it could just as well have been standing independently. Revised Standard Version and New American Standard Bible are also content to have “plant” in the text, though in each case the marginal note supports “castor oil plant.” The plant is not mentioned anywhere else, so there is really no clear evidence by which to identify it.

The expression LORD God used here is an unusual combination, occurring mainly in the story of creation in Genesis 2 and 3 and in Chronicles, but otherwise not more than half a dozen times. It is not the same Hebrew expression as is translated “Sovereign LORD” in Good News Translation. The expression the LORD God may be expressed as “God who is the Lord” or “the Lord who is God.” It would be wrong to use an expression in which “the Lord” is simply an honorific title of God, equivalent to “sir God.”

The verb in the expression “should grow up” (New English Bible) may either be understood as the simple form, with the plant as subject, or the causative, with God as subject; the form is the same.

As a causative the verb made a plant grow up may be expressed as “the Lord God caused a plant to grow up.” Over Jonah may be “above Jonah.” It is important to avoid an expression that would mean that the plant covered Jonah; in fact, it is better in some instances to translate the first part of verse 6 as “the Lord God made a plant grow up so as to shade Jonah.”

According to Revised Standard Version the plant grew up “to save him from his discomfort.” This last word translates the same Hebrew word as is found in 3.8, 10 and 4.1. There the word refers to the evil behavior of the people of Nineveh, the disaster that God decided not to inflict on them, and the displeasure felt by Jonah in view of God’s mercy. So here the word may refer to Jonah’s discomfort or his “distress” (New English Bible), in other words, his evil situation. This is expressed in a positive way in Good News Translation, so that he would be more comfortable. But in view of the use of the same word in verse 1 with reference to Jonah, it may mean “to release him from his bad mood” (compare Jerusalem Bible “and soothe his ill-humor”), especially in view of the third person suffix.

So that he would be more comfortable may be expressed in this context as “so that he would not be so hot.” Such an expression may, however, have a double meaning, referring not only to the heat of the sun upon him but to his own heated anger, thus suggesting a reference to 4.1.

There is no justification for the additional clause at the beginning of the verse in Living Bible “and when the leaves of the shelter withered in the heat,” since the Hebrew neither states nor implies this.

The result was as might be expected. Jonah was extremely pleased with the plant. This is more forceful than New English Bible, “Jonah was grateful for the gourd.” The construction here is similar to that of 1.16, “feared with a great fear.” So here, “rejoiced with a great joy” (compare Matt 2.10 Revised Standard Version). The expression Jonah was extremely pleased with the plant must be inverted in some languages to read “The plant caused Jonah to be very happy indeed” or “The plant made Jonah extremely happy.”

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 .

Once again, God “arranged,” but this time for a worm, which attacked the plant. This happened at dawn the next day, in other words, before the sun had risen. The word used here for worm is sometimes found in the singular in a collective sense as in Deut 28.39; Isa 14.11; 66.24, but in such cases the meaning is clearly not singular.

The order of expression in the sequence at dawn the next day, at God’s command, a worm may be quite awkward if translated literally. The relationships can be more satisfactorily expressed in some languages as “at dawn the next day God commanded a worm to attack” or “when the sun rose the next day, God commanded a worm, ‘Attack the plant.’ ”

The final clause and it died must often be set off from the command of God and introduced by some resultative particle; for example, “and so it died” or “and because of this it died.” In a number of languages, however, one must be very careful in the selection of a term meaning to die, since a word that is applicable to people may not be applicable to plants. For plants it may be necessary to say “dried up” or “withered.”

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 .

Then the sun rose on that same morning, and once again God “arranged” for a hot east wind to blow, to make matters still worse for Jonah. The meaning hot can only be guessed from the context. It does not occur anywhere else in the Old Testament but is found in one of the hymns at Qumran, also referring to an east wind. Various guesses at the meaning have been made, on the basis of etymology. One possibility is a connection with one of the Hebrew words for “sun,” in a slightly different spelling. Another is a connection with the verb “to be silent,” hence “oppressive, sultry,” as Revised Standard Version, Revised Standard Version, Modern Language Bible, New Jerusalem Bible. Koehler’s lexicon suggests that the word harishith is really an error for hariphith, for haraph “to be sharp.” But since this adjective does not occur elsewhere, the suggestion is not very convincing. It is generally agreed, however, that the meaning is “very hot,” so that New American Bible, Bible in Basic English, and An American Translation have “burning,” and Jerusalem Bible, New English Bible, New American Standard Bible “scorching.” Moffatt is still more vivid with “sweltering,” and Knox uses the special term “sirocco,” the hot wind that blows across the desert, particularly in North Africa. Jonah was to the east of Nineveh and would be exposed to the full force both of the east wind and of the rising sun. The writer, having in mind the situation in Palestine where the hot wind blows from the east across the desert, thinks in the same terms of Nineveh.

God sent a hot east wind must be restructured as a causative in many instances; for example, “God caused a hot east wind to blow.” A verb meaning “send” may be readily employed with persons as objects, but not with a physical event such as “wind.”

According to Good News Translation Jonah was about to faint from the heat of the sun beating down on his head, though the verb in its only other occurrence in Amos 8.13, means “to faint” rather than “to be about to faint.” Presumably, although on the point of fainting, Jonah needed to be conscious enough to address God in the last part of the verse. The verb could perhaps here refer to sunstroke (compare Isa 49.10). Knox, more picturesquely, has “all of a sweat.” Though the rendering by Knox is picturesque, it may be regarded as misleading, since as long as a person is sweating, he is not likely to faint or to suffer from sunstroke. It is the failure to sweat that causes faintness. There is, of course, a problem in this verse, since the reader may wonder why Jonah is not seated under the shade of the shelter and thus avoiding the sun’s rays beating down on his head. Good News Translation deals with this problem to some extent by speaking of “faint from the heat of the sun,” but the additional phrase beating down on his head may suggest to some readers a special difficulty concerning Jonah’s actual location.

Only rarely can one translate literally the sun beating down on his head, since the sun does not employ physical violence. In some instances one may speak of “the sun touching his head with heat,” or “the sun burning his head,” or “the sun causing his head to be very hot.”

So he wished he were dead, as in verse 3. But this time Jonah does not ask God to take away his nephesh (see 2.5, 6), but requests that his nephesh might die, since as he said previously, “I am better off dead than alive.” The wording of Jonah’s request is the same as that of Elijah in 1 Kgs 19.4. There is something paradoxical in the notion of the request for one’s own death. Similarly, in Exo 4.19, Moses is given the assurance that those who seek his life, in other words, who demand his death, are themselves dead (compare Matt 2.20). In 1 Kgs 3.11 Solomon is commended for not seeking the life of his enemies, in other words, their death (compare Job 31.10).

The context and the resemblance to verse 3 both indicate that Jonah is here addressing God. He is not simply expressing to himself the desirability of death rather than life, as in a literal translation “and he begged his soul that it might die.”

Jonah’s wish for death must be expressed in many languages as direct discourse, for example, “he wished, ‘I would like to be dead,’ ” or “he said to himself, ‘I wish I were dead,’ ” or “… ‘I do not want to live longer.’ ”

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 .