“At last” (New English Bible) implies an interval of time between verses 6 and 7, but this is not necessary to the narrative. In any event, the scene shifts from the hold, where Jonah was lying, to the sailors on deck. Prayer had so far achieved nothing; perhaps if they could find out who was to blame for the storm, some other remedy might be found. New English Bible and Bible in Basic English follow King James Version in a rather literalistic use of the word “come.” But the Hebrew word is merely an introductory signal to indicate that a suggestion is being put forward (compare 2 Kgs 5.5 King James Version). Often languages use other expressions, such as “Look!” to introduce a proposal for action. Jerusalem Bible with “come on” is certainly more idiomatic than New English Bible.

Because of the shift of location and at least some period of time involved in the transition between verses 6 and 7, it may be important to introduce verse 7 by “Then the sailors said” or “Later, after Jonah had joined them on deck, the sailors said.”

Let’s draw lots. Every culture has its own method of determining who is to be held responsible in a situation such as this; for example, tossing a coin (Winding Quest “let’s toss up”), or drawing straws from a bundle. Jonah’s name was drawn implies a situation where names were written on pieces of wood.

The techniques of divination differ very widely, and therefore expressions related to such methods may be quite diverse; for example, “throw the stones,” “drop the pieces of wood,” or “scatter the feathers.” In some instances the appropriate expression would be “Let us consult the spirits” or “Let us ask the gods.”

In any event, it was believed (compare Prov 16.33) that God, or the gods, would be able to control the “luck of the draw” in such a way as to indicate who is to blame. This represents a somewhat uncommon way of saying in Hebrew “on whose account,” by using a shortened form of the relative particle. The superstitious outlook of the sailors is implied by New English Bible‘s reference to “this bad luck.”

Who is to blame may be rendered in some languages as a causative, for example, “who has caused us to be in such danger” or “who has caused us to almost die.”

The verb did in the clause They did so is a typical substitute verb; that is to say, it substitutes for a verb expression such as draw lots. In other languages, however, it may be necessary to repeat the verb; for example, “they consulted the gods.”

In place of Jonah’s name was drawn, a more typical expression may be “the stick pointed to Jonah,” or “the stone was Jonah’s” (referring to techniques of divination), or “Jonah was named,” or possibly “they learned that it was Jonah.”

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 contains one of the few textual difficulties in the book. New English Bible omits the words that are represented in Good News Translation by Who is to blame for this? This was the very question which the drawing of lots was meant to determine; so its repetition is pointless, and the corresponding words are not found in some Hebrew manuscripts and in the best Greek manuscripts, though they may have fallen out by accident. Ziegler suggests that the omission of the question in codices Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Venetus of the Septuagint was due to the confusion arising from two occurrences of hēmin in the same verse (homoioteleuton). But it is much more likely that they wrongly found their way into the text as the result of a marginal note explaining the strange expression in verse 7 being accidentally inserted into verse 8. They simply repeat the question raised in the previous verse. King James Version and New Jerusalem Bible retain the words here in verse 8 but understand them as a participial clause referring to Jonah, “the-bringer-of-misfortune-upon-us,” or “the one who is to blame for all this,” so New Jerusalem Bible translates “Tell us, you who have brought this misfortune upon us.” But to do this strains the Hebrew construction and leaves one word unaccounted for.

It is possible to follow the Good News Translation rendering of the question Who is to blame for this? by assuming that the sailors at this point wished to have Jonah himself admit his blame and thus confirm what the process of divination had already indicated.

The next question, What are you doing here? may be understood in a variety of senses. The Hebrew expression normally refers to work in general; for example, Psa 107.23 “earning their living on the seas,” or even God’s work in creation (Gen 2.2, 3). So here, New English Bible has “what is your business?” which may be intended as a general question meaning “what is your occupation?” (so King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Bible in Basic English, Zürcher Bibel [Zürcher Bibel], Luther 1984), with the implication that his occupation may itself have been an unlucky one and hence displeasing to the gods. But if the meaning is, as in Good News Translation, “What is your business on this ship?” (so Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, An American Translation), the implication may have been that the sailors were suspicious of the presence among them of an Israelite, since Israelites were not a seafaring people. This is the sense taken by Knox (“What is your errand?”) and Mowinckel Mowinckel “What is the purpose of your journey?”). If the word is associated with the similar word meaning “messenger,” the meaning here may well be “errand, mission,” but that meaning is scarcely found elsewhere (but compare Dan 8.27). The last three questions in the verse are combined into two in Good News Translation: What country do you come from? What is your nationality? In some languages it may not be necessary to distinguish between Jonah’s nationality, in political terms, and his race, in ethnic terms.

What country do you come from? may be rendered as “Where do you make your home?” or “Where do you normally live?” or “Where is your home?” The question What is your nationality? may be equivalent to “What is your race?” or “What people do you belong to?” or even “What is your tribe?” In a few instances the designation of nationality is expressed in linguistic terms, that is to say, “What is your language?” or even “What is the language of your home?”

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 first, Jonah, who here speaks for the first time in the story, appears to ignore the first question and merely answers the last one. He replies “I am a Hebrew.” This is a term that is seldom used in the Old Testament, which prefers the expression “Israelite.” It is frequently used by foreigners, especially Egyptians and Philistines, or by Israelites in speaking to foreigners such as these sailors. This is the only place in the Old Testament where someone says “I am a Hebrew,” though Joseph implies it in Gen 40.15. In the New Testament Paul describes himself as a Hebrew in Phil 3.5. There is a tendency among translators to render I am a Hebrew as simply “I am a Jew” (for example, Living Bible). Such a rendering is of course technically incorrect, because the term “Jew” refers essentially to persons from the southern part of Israel, not from the northern kingdom. It is important, therefore, to reproduce some kind of transliteration of Hebrew, even though this may not appear to be the more common designation of present-day Jews.

The statement I am a Hebrew may, however, require some expansion in certain languages; for example, “My race is Hebrew,” or “I belong to a family of Hebrews,” or “My nation is called Hebrew.”

Jonah had not been asked about his religion, but he volunteers the information that he is a worshiper of (or “one who fears” Revised Standard Version) Yahweh, the maker of sea and land. An American Translation has “I stand in awe of the LORD.” The combination of the two parts of his answer may be taken in either of two ways: (1) since he is a Hebrew, he must therefore be a worshiper of Yahweh, or (2) he is a Hebrew, and in the restrictive sense, one of those who worships Yahweh. The first of these two is more likely. Yahweh is the personal name of the God of Israel and is generally represented in English translations by “the LORD.” (Jerusalem Bible is an exception in this respect.) “The LORD” is a title, whereas Yahweh is a name, which might seem to favor using a name approximating in sound to Yahweh in a modern translation. But against this it may be argued that in the reading of the Scriptures, the Jews have substituted the title ʾadonay, “the Lord.” This procedure was followed in early translations of the Old Testament, beginning with the Septuagint. Some, for example, Living Bible, would prefer the name “Jehovah” (see Exo 3.15; 6.3; and the footnotes on those passages in New English Bible). This is the traditional English method of representing the sacred name, going back to medieval practice, and has been followed in other languages, for example, Chinese. But it is an artificial form that combines the Hebrew consonants of Yahweh with the vowels of ʾadonay, meaning “Lord,” and though printed in that form in Hebrew Bibles, it is not meant to be pronounced in that way.

Though there would be certain distinct advantages in reproducing “Yahweh” as a proper name, translational practice is generally opposed to this, especially since the term “Yahweh” has been associated with a somewhat more liberal theological tradition. Therefore in a number of so-called missionary areas of the world the introduction of such a proper name would seem to be theologically tainted. If, however, one is to employ the expression “Lord,” it is important to combine features of importance and control, that is to say, a term should suggest that the person involved is a very important individual, and that in some senses he governs or controls individuals who address him as “Lord.” An equivalent in some languages is simply “ruler”; in other cases, “master”; and there are some situations in which the closest equivalent indigenous term is “leader.” More frequently, however, the equivalent expression is “chief.”

Though traditional translations have usually rendered the Hebrew expression literally “I fear the LORD,” a literal rendering of such an expression may be quite misleading, since it would suggest, even as it does in English, that people were “scared of the Lord.” In this type of context the Hebrew term that is often translated “fear” identifies an individual as the worshiper of a particular god.

In apposition to the name “Yahweh,” which is placed in an emphatic position, is the descriptive title God of heaven. This title occurs mainly in late books of the Old Testament, but also in Gen 24.3, 7. Heaven is the dwelling place of God, but this expression God of heaven also suggests the supremacy of Israel’s God over all rivals. As God of heaven he is also concerned with the earth, since he made the sea and the dry land (the Hebrew order here, as against Good News Translation), which makes up its surface (Gen 1.9, 10), and hence controls the storms. The writer leaves us to infer the lack of logic in Jonah’s position; how could he hope to escape such a God by traveling westward?

The phrase God of heaven is most frequently rendered by an expression that means “God in heaven,” for a literal rendering of God of heaven might only refer to a god who controls the heavens and nothing else, that is to say, the sky god in contrast with the god of the earth. Fortunately the context makes it quite clear that though this is “the God of heaven,” he also made both the land and the sea.

In choosing a term to translate made, it is important to use an expression that would be appropriate to both land and sea, that is to say, “formed” or “caused to exist.” In some cases a term such as “made” refers only to artifacts, and such an expression would normally be inappropriate in speaking of the land and sea.

In some languages there is no generic term for land, and therefore it may be necessary to use a phrase such as “fields and mountains.” In the case of sea, there may be additional problems in distinguishing between (1) bodies of water that are surrounded by land (that is to say, lakes) and (2) bodies of water that are not surrounded, therefore equivalent more or less to “oceans.” It would be this latter term that is appropriate in this context.

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 indirect discourse in 10b must often be changed to direct discourse; for example, “Jonah went on to tell them, ‘I am running away from the Lord.’ ” In many languages, however, one cannot speak of “the Lord,” for the relationship between a person and his Lord is an obligatory relationship that must be expressed as “my Lord” or even “the Lord of all people.” In this context, however, it would seem more appropriate for Jonah to speak of “my Lord,” since he is not assuming that Yahweh is the Lord of these particular sailors.

A literal rendering of running away from could suggest that the Lord was somehow chasing after Jonah. It is important to avoid such an implication, and perhaps this can be done in some instances by saying “I am trying to escape from the Lord,” or perhaps “I am going to a place where the Lord cannot see me.”

The indirect discourse in 10b must often be changed to direct discourse; for example, “Jonah went on to tell them, ‘I am running away from the Lord.’ ” In many languages, however, one cannot speak of “the Lord,” for the relationship between a person and his Lord is an obligatory relationship that must be expressed as “my Lord” or even “the Lord of all people.” In this context, however, it would seem more appropriate for Jonah to speak of “my Lord,” since he is not assuming that Yahweh is the Lord of these particular sailors.

A literal rendering of running away from could suggest that the Lord was somehow chasing after Jonah. It is important to avoid such an implication, and perhaps this can be done in some instances by saying “I am trying to escape from the Lord,” or perhaps “I am going to a place where the Lord cannot see me.”Here again the text causes some problems, which are dealt with differently by different translators.

The first part of the verse, The sailors were terrified, does not relate very closely to what precedes. Why should the sailors be terrified because Jonah tells them that he worships the maker of the sea and the dry land? Were they afraid that, in spite of their innocence, they too would now be involved in the punishment for his crime? The word “fear” or “be terrified” is the same as that which Jonah has just used for worship. In other words, the author is contrasting the genuine awe of the heathen sailors, who were aware that the storm was sent by Jonah’s God, with the merely nominal or conventional confession of faith on the part of the Hebrew Jonah. The sailors are already said to have been afraid in verse 5, but here the description is intensified, which justifies New English Bible here, “were even more afraid.” The form the Hebrew takes is “feared with a great fear.” This linking of a noun similar in form to a verb is known as “cognate accusative” and is often used in Hebrew to add strength to the verb itself; for example, Zech 1.14; Isa 66.10; Psa 14.5.

If the text of Good News Translation is arranged in the order of the Hebrew, the result would be The sailors were terrified, and said to him, “That was an awful thing to do!” (They knew) he was running away from the LORD. Jonah went on to tell them. But Good News Translation has been rearranged in a more logical order, to indicate the sequence of cause and effect. This one verse in Hebrew has three occurrences of the word ki, which, as noted in verse 2, can have the meaning of either “for” or “that.” This is brought out clearly in Revised Standard Version: “For … that … because….” In other words, there is here a double flashback, answering two successive questions:

(a) Why did the sailors exclaim as they did?
Because they knew Jonah was fleeing from the LORD.
(b) How did they know this?
Because Jonah had already told them.

Since this final sentence is required to give the reader the clue to the behavior of the sailors, Good News Translation places it at the beginning of the verse and at the same time supplies an indication of when Jonah’s explanation occurred. In other word, his confession is taken to be a continuation of his speech in verse 9, hence went on to tell them. There is, however, no indication in the Hebrew of the time when Jonah disclosed his “business” (verse 8) or his reason for being on the ship, so the treatment in New English Bible is quite as legitimate, with its insertion of “already” and its use of the pluperfect “had told.” In any event, it was this disclosure on Jonah’s part that led the sailors to exclaim as they did (compare Gen 3.13): “That was an awful thing to do!” with specific reference to Jonah’s attempt to flee from God (so also Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt, Zürcher Bibel).

On the other hand, the words of the sailors can be taken as a question, as in New English Bible, “What can you have done wrong?” implying their concern to know what induced Jonah to attempt to flee. This is also the force of the footnote in Good News Translation, “Why did you have to run away like that?” Living Bible, Luther 1984, Jerusalem Bible, Chinese Union Version also suppose that the sailors are asking a question. The Hebrew text, however, does not offer an answer to such a question, and it is better to treat the words as an exclamation. Mwkl considers the last sentence to be an addition to the text, arising out of a misunderstanding of the verb “knew,” which it interprets as “perceived.” There is no textual evidence in favor of the supposition that the last part of the verse is a later addition, brought in to account for the preceding sentence.

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 .

Here again, in this verse Good News Translation substitutes the historical order for the Hebrew narrative order to give the background to the situation before introducing the words of the sailors. New English Bible retains the Hebrew order, and as in the previous verse introduces the last sentence with an explanatory “for.” Knox gains the same effect by a parenthesis “(Even as they spoke, the waves grew more angry yet).” The description of the storm may, in fact, be a continuation of the words of the sailors, “for the storm is getting worse and worse.” Against this, however, is the fact that precisely the same words occur in verse 13, where they cannot be a part of a speech. The sailors, having learned not only that Jonah was the person who was to blame for the storm, but also that he had done something to arouse God’s anger, now ask how the situation can be saved. In other words, since he knew what had happened to cause the storm, that ought to qualify him to suggest a remedy.

The Revised Standard Version shows a clearer understanding than King James Version of the Hebrew idiom used here: “more and more tempestuous.” In other words, the two verbs used in the Hebrew do not refer to different actions but to the progressive intensification of one action. As against the storm of Good News Translation and New English Bible, some others follow the Hebrew more closely by referring to the “sea”; for example, Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, An American Translation, Moffatt. In neither Good News Translation nor New English Bible is there any mention of the relation of the storm to the sailors themselves, as in the Hebrew, with its “from upon us.” (Compare Revised Standard Version, Luther 1984, New American Bible, “for us.”)

The question What should we do to you to stop the storm? must often be expressed as a causative; for example, “What should we do to you in order to cause the storm to cease?” or “… cause the wind no longer to blow?”

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 third time, the psalmist mentions his desperate situation, as he had already done in verse 2 and in verses 3-6a. So once again the reference is to the situation before Jonah had been brought back alive from the underworld. The word life is not the same as that which is used in the previous verse, but is the word translated “neck” by New English Bible in verse 5, and by King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and others as “soul” in this verse. The Hebrew word nephesh has a variety of meanings, as already noted, and here New English Bible has “my senses failed me.”

The translation of nephesh depends to some extent on the way in which the accompanying verb is understood. Good News Translation understands the verb as having the meaning “to faint,” hence When I felt my life slipping away. In much the same way An American Translation has “when I was losing consciousness,” and New Jerusalem Bible “When my life was ebbing away.” A sense of “despair” is another possible meaning of the verb, as can be seen from the passages in the Psalms where it occurs (107.5, where the same expression is used as here in Jonah; 142.3; 143.4).

The figurative expression my life slipping away can only be expressed in some languages as “I was dying.” The entire first clause may then be rendered as “when I felt that I was dying.”

At the time of his greatest despair, the psalmist prayed to the Lord. New English Bible uses here the verb “remembered,” but in contexts of prayer this means more than simply calling to mind. It involves mentioning the Lord by name, as in Jer 20.9 and in Psa 77.3, where the psalmist is no doubt praying to God as well as thinking about him.

In rendering O LORD and you, it may be important to place them together, in which case, O LORD may be a type of attributive or modifier of you; for example, “then I prayed to you, who are my Lord.”

The poet goes on to speak of his prayer achieving its objective by reaching the Lord in his holy Temple. This expression is the same as that which was used in verse 4, though that in itself is no proof that the earthly Temple in Jerusalem is meant here. In Micah 1.2, for instance, the reference may well be to God’s heavenly temple, and that meaning seems most appropriate in this present context, where the speaker is not necessarily thinking in terms of the land of Israel. It is evident from such passages as Solomon’s prayer in 1 Kings 8 that the ideas of the earthly Temple and of its heavenly counterpart were closely related in Israelite thought.

In your holy Temple may be expressed as “in the holy place where you dwell.” When, however, it is combined with the verb heard, it may be important to indicate the place as a source; for example, “you heard me from your holy Temple” or “… from your holy house.”

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 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 .

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 .