This verse recapitulates verse 12 in that, as a result of carrying out Jonah’s advice and throwing him into the sea, the storm ceases. The sea is personified here, since the word “raging” (New English Bible) is used elsewhere only of human beings or of God. So “the sea was no longer angry” (Bible in Basic English). Jonah makes no protest and submits to his fate.

In translating they picked Jonah up, it is important to avoid an expression that would suggest that Jonah had been lying down. It is preferable in a number of languages to say “they grabbed hold of Jonah” or “they took hold of Jonah” or “they took hold of Jonah and lifted him up.”

It calmed down at once must be expressed in some languages as a reference to the “waves,” therefore “the waves stopped at once.” But in a number of languages it is important to place the temporal expression first, for example, “and at once the sea became calm” or “… without waves.”

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 same expression is used here as at the beginning of verse 10, except that here the sailors’ “fear” is “fear of the Lord.” This looks like a later addition to the text, expanding the reference in the last part of the verse to acts of worship. Good News Translation takes “fear” here in the sense of “terror,” as do Knox and Jerusalem Bible (“dread”), while New English Bible, Moffatt, and others think in terms of religious awe. In verse 9 Jonah confesses that he worships Yahweh, but the combination of intense fear (as in verse 10) with worship of God (as in verse 9) is difficult to translate in such a way as to do justice to both elements. For “fear of the Lord” in the sense of “terror,” see also 1 Sam 12.18; 2 Sam 6.9; and Jer 5.22.

If instead of “fear” or “terror,” one interprets the first part of verse 16 as a reference to “awe,” one may render the clause This made the sailors so afraid of the LORD as “this made the sailors stand in awe of the Lord.” If the reference of the pronoun This must be made more explicit, the clause may be restructured so as to read “What the Lord did caused the sailors to be in awe of him.” Then the resulting clause introduced by that may be expressed as a separate sentence, “As a result, they offered a sacrifice….”

The mention of offering sacrifice might indicate that the narrator thinks in terms of such animals as the sailors might have had with them on board in preparation for a long voyage, or he may be indicating that as a result of the calming of the storm, the ship soon reached dry land, and they offered sacrifice there. Sacrifice was the normal expression of worship, and here the worshipers are foreigners, offering sacrifices to the God of Israel, an element that is omitted by Good News Translation. As frequently, Good News Translation subordinates one element in the verse to another instead of following the Hebrew pattern of coordinating the various actions and leaving the reader to supply the relationship between them.

Since the sacrifice probably took place somewhat later than the calming of the sea, it may be important to introduce a temporal factor; for example, “and as a result, they later offered a sacrifice.”

Offered a sacrifice may be expressed as “killed an animal as an act of worship to the Lord” or “… as a way of worshiping the Lord.” Sometimes the relationship between the sacrifice and worship may be explained quite precisely as “they killed an animal as a gift to the Lord.” In this context also it may be necessary to add “the Lord of Jonah.” If one uses “their Lord,” it might very well refer to some pagan deity.

The final sentence in the verse again refers to a standard element in worship, “made vows” (New English Bible). Good News Translation goes beyond the normal meaning of this expression in saying and promised to serve him (so also Winding Quest and Living Bible). The reaction of the sailors to the wonders they had experienced is not to be understood in terms of a “conversion” to Israel’s religion or the recognition that Yahweh alone is the one true God. Rudolph, page 345, points out the irony of a situation in which Jonah fails to take the initiative in any stage of the developments and has to have his confession of faith dragged out of him, and yet in spite of him the sailors are “filled with the fear of the LORD.”

In making a vow, a person would say in effect to God “If you fulfil my request, I will worship you with an offering.” Here the sailors were already saved from danger, so perhaps they are thought of as fulfilling vows made during the time of their danger.

Promised to serve him may therefore be rendered as “paid their vows to the Lord,” or “gave to the Lord what they had promised him in their vows,” or “… what they had vowed to give him.”

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 relationship between the LORD’s command and the action of the large fish may be expressed as “the Lord commanded a large fish to swallow Jonah.” There is, however, a problem of temporal sequence at this point, since the swallowing of Jonah took place immediately upon his being cast into the sea, and the sacrifice performed by the sailors no doubt took place somewhat later. It may therefore be important to introduce verse 17 by an appropriate temporal transition; for example, “When Jonah was cast into the sea.”

From the point of view of the narrator, the problem with which he is faced is that of getting Jonah to his destination, now that the sea has been calmed by his being thrown into it.

So a miracle takes place to renew Jonah’s call to the Lord’s service. The verb used here with the LORD as subject occurs three more times in this book (4.6, 7, 8). It occurs in this form only in the later writings of the Old Testament. Apart from “command” as in Good News Translation, several other translations have been suggested; for example, “provided” (New Jerusalem Bible), “sent for” (Luther 1984), “appointed” (Revised Standard Version). The use of “prepared” by King James Version, following the tradition of the Vulgate, suggests that God produced one particular fish for this special occasion (compare Goldman, “had ready”). In much the same way Jerusalem Bible has “Yahweh had arranged that a great fish should be there to swallow Jonah.” So this is the first of several occasions in the book where this verb is used to suggest that God arranged events in the course of Jonah’s mission to fit in with the divine purpose, whether the events were favorable as here and in 4.6, or unfavorable as in 4.7, 8. God had already been in control of the sea and the storm, and now he is shown to be in control of the large fish.

No indication is given for the kind of fish that swallows Jonah, apart from its size. It was not a whale, which is not a fish in the first place. The word used in Matt 12.40 is the same as is used in the Septuagint here. It is usually translated “whale,” though it has a wider range of meaning, since it is also applied to sea monsters (so New English Bible) or large fish. Knox here uses the expression “sea-beast.”

Whatever the nature of this creature, it is represented as being more obedient to the Lord, both here and in 2.10, than Jonah was. The same contrast between the disobedience of man and the submission of animals is found in Isa 1.3 and Jer 8.7.

The reference to three days and nights is taken up in Matt 12.40 as a foreshadowing of the period during which Jesus remained in the tomb. Here, however, it is simply one of the ingredients of the story introduced to make the period more specific. “Three” is sometimes an indefinite low number in the Old Testament (for example, Hos 6.2). The same period of time is found in 1 Sam 30.12 and Est 4.16; in both of these passages the implication is that three days was a long period to do without food.

There is no need to see in this incident an allegory of the exile based on Jer 51.34. Nor is anything to be gained by trying to rationalize this account of an unusual incident by suggesting, as has been done, that on reaching dry land Jonah was accommodated at an inn named “The Fish.” Neither should any significance, for translational purposes, be attached to the variation between the masculine form of “fish” here and the feminine form in the next verse.

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 marks a turning point in the book, as Jonah himself now prays. Up to this point there is no indication that he followed the example of the heathen sailors by praying on board ship. The usual verb “to pray” is only used twice in the book, here and in 4.2; elsewhere the verb used is “to call.”

A literal rendering of From deep inside the fish might suggest that Jonah was at “the bottom of the fish.” This, of course, is not necessarily implied; it simply means that Jonah was “well inside the fish.” Therefore an equivalent rendering might be “From the very inside of the fish” or “From right there inside the fish.”

The expression his God implies in this context the existence of other gods, as in 1.5, where “god” has no capital letter, the point being that there the reference is to the gods of the heathen sailors, but here to the LORD, the God of Israel. The genitive here bears no sense of exclusive possession, but simply means the God whom Jonah worshiped (1.9). As a prayer from inside the fish, the language of thanksgiving may seem somewhat premature.

For languages that require a possessive relationship with “Lord,” it may be possible to translate “his Lord, that is, his God.” In other instances a more satisfactory rendering may be simply “his Lord God.” A rendering such as “his Lord who is God” would presume a kind of exclusive meaning of monotheism that may be judged inappropriate for this type of context. At the same time one must recognize that in a number of languages one cannot speak of “his God” but simply as “the God whom he worshiped,” since it may be quite inappropriate to speak of “possessing God.” Compare the statement made in connection with verse 5 of chapter 1.

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 Good News Translation quotes the wording of the prayer, though Hebrew introduces the prayer by “and he said,” which can, of course, be rendered by some such expression as “saying” or “as follows.”

The form of Good News Translation obscures the fact that there is a change halfway through the verse from a statement about the Lord in the third person to an acknowledgment of his help in the second person. A similar change occurs in verse 7, but for the sake of clarity Good News Translation keeps to second person throughout as being appropriate for a prayer. In view of the fact that the Lord is referred to by a second person singular pronoun you, it may be wrong in some languages to employ a title of direct address, as in Good News Translation O LORD. This may be particularly inappropriate in view of the fact that there is a mention in verse 1 of the prayer as being addressed to the LORD.

The phrase In my distress may be rendered in a number of languages by a clause, “when I was in great trouble,” or in a more figurative expression, “when great troubles overwhelmed me.”

The tense of the verbs I called and you answered has been interpreted as implying that the prayer is uttered by someone looking back in gratitude to a deliverance that has already taken place, not looking forward to some future rescue. Knox evades this difficulty by using the present tense.

In some languages a literal rendering of you answered me may imply merely that God responded verbally. This is what is specifically meant in this passage, but the implication is of course much greater, and a literal rendering might suggest that God only answered verbally and paid no further attention to Jonah. Obviously the Lord answered by helping; therefore it may be better in some instances to render you answered me as “you came to my help” or “you answered by helping me.”

In the second half of the Hebrew text, the Lord is addressed directly, but in other respects, it is a close parallel to the first half, in that it speaks of the worshiper’s prayer arising out of his dangerous situation, and the answer he receives from the Lord.

The prayer is described as coming from deep in the world of the dead, or “out of the belly of Sheol” (New English Bible). In other words the worshiper is pictured as having “one foot in the grave,” to use an English idiom, or in “the jaws of death,” as Luther 1984 expresses it. The expression used in Good News Translation, the world of the dead, corresponds to the Hebrew word Sheol (for example, An American Translation “heart of Sheol”). The word occurs often in the Psalms and the book of Job to refer to the place to which all dead people go. It is represented as a dark place, in which there is no activity worthy of the name. There are no moral distinctions there, so “hell” (King James Version) is not a suitable translation, since that suggests a contrast with “heaven” as the dwelling place of the righteous after death. In a sense, “the grave” in a generic sense is a near equivalent, except that Sheol is more a mass grave in which all the dead dwell together.

This is by no means the only place where Sheol is personified in such a way as to be represented as having bodily parts. Here “belly” (New English Bible) simply means the innermost part, hence deep in the world of the dead in Good News Translation. This is the only place where Sheol is said to have a “belly” or a “womb”; the Hebrew word may have either meaning. Sheol has a “throat” and “jaws” in Isa 5.14 (New English Bible), and there we find the same kind of imagery, with the underworld represented as a vast cavern into which one may go down, but out of which it is not possible to come up. Sheol has a mouth (Psa 141.7) with which it can swallow people (Prov 1.12), and it has a great appetite (Hab 2.5; Prov 27.20). The use of this particular imagery may have been considered suitable here in view of Jonah’s imprisonment in the interior of the fish, though the word used in Hebrew is not the same as in the previous verses.

The world of the dead is rendered in a number of languages as “the place where the dead are” or “… dwell.” A literal rendering of world might suggest that there are two distinct earths, one for the living and another for the dead. An adequate equivalent for deep may be simply “down in the place where the dead are.”

The use of the perfect tense “heard” in New English Bible (“have heard” in Jerusalem Bible) is not based on any difference in the form of the Hebrew verb from that of “cried,” but may be justified by supposing that Jonah here is speaking of an action in the past continuing into the present. Elsewhere in the Old Testament, those in the world of the dead are completely cut off from God, with no possibility of any prayer being heard (for example, Psa 88.5, 10, 11; Isa 38.18).

I cried for help must frequently be rendered as “I shouted for help” or “I shouted to you, ‘Help me.’ ” One should avoid a rendering of cried that would suggest “weeping” or “lamenting.”

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 connection between this verse and the preceding one is so obscure that T. H. Robinson supposes that some words, such as a confession of sin, have dropped out between the two verses. The form of the Hebrew verb with which the verse begins is such as to suggest that the action it describes follows upon that mentioned at the end of verse 2. But in fact it fills out the description of the distress mentioned at the beginning of the prayer. Mowinckel, An American Translation, Moffatt, King James Version, and A. R. Johnson (1946) all have the pluperfect here, though such a usage is exceptional. Clearly there is a contrast between the favorable treatment received at the end of verse 2, and the unfavorable treatment mentioned here.

The imagery changes here, and the reference to the sea and the waters would make it seem a suitable prayer for Jonah to use. But although the form of the image is changed, the poet is still thinking of the world of the dead, as can be seen from verses 6 and 7 of Psalm 88, a poem that expresses most intensely the despair of someone in danger of death. In Psalm 69 also, the references to the deep waters in verses 1, 2, 14, and 15 express the imagery of impending death.

The word translated “depths” may be a later addition to the poem, as it makes the line unduly long and upsets the regular 3/2 pattern in the poetic meter. Apart from A. R. Johnson, Mowinckel, and Moffatt, modern translations retain the word. It may well be an explanatory interpretation of the word waters or “flood” (New English Bible), since that word normally means “river,” but is used here in a specialized sense to refer to the ocean currents that are mentioned, for example, in Psa 24.2 and 93.3 (where Good News Translation has “ocean depths”).

The word depths is often used in poetry with the same meaning as the words that follow, that is, “the heart of the seas”; for example, Psa 68.22; 88.6 (New English Bible “depths”); and Micah 7.19. Just as in the previous verse Sheol is said to have a “belly,” so here the sea has a “heart,” as it does in Exo 15.8 and Psa 46.2. New English Bible understands this to refer to somewhere far from land, but usage elsewhere in the Bible suggests rather that the poet is thinking of the very bottom of the sea.

Into the depths, to the very bottom of the sea must be rendered in such a way as to indicate that this involves a kind of apposition; for example, “into the deep parts of the ocean, that is, at the very bottom of the sea.” But such an explanatory type of apposition may be both cumbersome and misleading. Therefore it is sometimes possible to combine the two expressions the depths and the very bottom of the sea into a single phrase; for example, “down to the very deep part of the sea” or “down to the lowest part of the sea.”

As already noted, the “flood” to which Revised Standard Version refers is not the flood associated with Noah, but one more word expressing the overwhelming sensation of helplessness likely to be felt by someone in Jonah’s situation. This same type of imagery is used in the Psalms, particularly in Psa 69.1, 2, 14, 15; 88.6, 7, 17, where it is unnecessary to suppose that the psalmist was actually in danger of drowning. So also here, the imagery of being overwhelmed is felt by the author to fit the situation of someone who was literally in the depths of the sea, as Jonah was in the fish.

At the creation God subdued the watery chaos that was there in the beginning (Gen 1.2), and by dividing the dry land from the sea (Gen 1.6-10), he made life on earth possible. Hence, when the poet feels that these mighty waters were closing round him, he is very conscious of the imminent threat of death. In fact, in the next line this thought is intensified, and the mighty waves roll over him, with the same nightmare effect as in Psalms 69 and 88 and Lam 3.54. The use of the genitive often presents a problem in translation, and here the waves are referred to as “your waves.” Either the poet is thinking of the waves as having been sent by God against the psalmist, or more probably as being under his control, since he conquered the ocean at the creation. In Psa 42.7, which is identical with this line, the two words “waves” and “breakers” (New English Bible) are used, as they are here, hence mighty waves in Good News Translation here, in which the two nouns are combined into a single phrase. This is the only actual quotation from the Psalms and is regarded by many as suggesting a later insertion.

In a number of languages one cannot speak of waters in a plural form. Since water is a mass, it is generally referred to by a singular term, as in English “water.” Accordingly, where the waters were all around me must be expressed as “where there was water all around me.” In some languages, however, it is far better to speak of a person as being in the water rather than the water being around the person. Accordingly one may have to translate “where I was there in the water,” or “… deep in the water,” or “… deep in the ocean.”

The possessive relationship in your mighty waves may be expressed as a causative; for example, “the mighty waves you have caused” or “the large waves that you caused.” If the interpretation of control over the mighty waves is preferred, one may render this expression as “the great waves that you control” or “… command.”

In a number of instances it is difficult to speak of “waves rolling”; they may, however, be described as “flooding over” or “spreading over,” or even “tumbling over,” though in some cases a more general term such as “move” may be required; for example, “your great waves are moving above me.”

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 .

Most translations introduce a fresh sentence here, but a closer unity is effected by Luther 1984, with its “so that I thought…,” and Knox‘s “till it seemed.” In any event, here as often elsewhere, Hebrew expresses I thought … by using the verb “to say,” hence, “to say to one’s self.” New English Bible uses the past passive construction here, but Good News Translation introduces the pluperfect passive. The choice of one or the other depends on whether, as in New English Bible, the poet is thinking of himself as being in a state of banishment or is looking back on the banishment as having taken place previously.

In view of the close parallel between this verse and Psa 31.22, where the verb differs by one letter from that used here for banished, it has been suggested that here, too, the meaning should be “cut off” rather than “driven away,” especially since the verb that stands here never has the meaning of “driven away” in this passive form, but always “tossed about.” But in most languages the difference in translating the verbs in Psalm 31 and here would be minimal.

For languages that do not permit a passive expression, it may be difficult to render adequately the phrase I had been banished. This may be rendered as an active expression with God as the subject; for example, “I thought you had banished me.” This would not be out of keeping with the theme of verse 3, You threw me down into the depths, but it may be useful to avoid the indication of an agent, in which case one might render the first part of verse 4 as “I thought I would never again return” or “… could never again return,” in which case from your presence would need to be rendered as “to your presence” or “to you.”

“Sight” (New English Bible) is perhaps preferable to presence, since the Hebrew word used here refers to the eyes. As so often in the Old Testament, the world of the dead is envisaged as being out of touch with God (for example, Isa 38.11, 18).

The major textual difficulty in this psalm relates to the first word in the second half of verse 4. It involves the difference between a positive and a negative assessment of the possibility of the worshiper ever recovering from his present disaster. The positive meaning follows the Hebrew text as vocalized; for example, King James Version “yet I will look again….” This reading is found also in Revised Standard Version, Knox, Modern Language Bible, New American Bible, New American Standard Bible (New American Standard Bible), and is defended by A. R. Johnson (1946, page 84), who claims: “The reading of the Masoretic text suggests an emotional content wholly in keeping with the situation that the psalmist contemplates.” If, however, instead of the positive word “yet” or “nevertheless,” we read a word of very similar sound meaning “how,” we arrive at the sense understood by New English Bible and Good News Translation, and would never see. This continues the thought of the previous line and continues to be subordinate to “I thought.” This is the reading followed by Revised Standard Version, Luther 1984, Zürcher Bibel, Moffatt, An American Translation, Jerusalem Bible, Bible in Basic English, Living Bible, and Mowinckel. Similarly New Jerusalem Bible asks “Would I ever gaze again…?” although it does not acknowledge a departure from the vocalized Hebrew text, which is also true of New English Bible. The variant is based upon the reading “how?” in the Greek translation of Theodotion, who would have been translating from a Hebrew text with no vowel markings.

A strong case can, however, be made for retaining the Hebrew text as it stands, in which case the worshiper brings out the contrast between his fears that God had banished him from his sight and the confident assurance that in spite of everything he has been able to enjoy worship in the Temple. This interpretation does not suit the immediate situation in which Jonah finds himself, but is perfectly suitable for one who is giving thanks for his salvation; “yet, in spite of my despair, here I am in the Temple once again.” The main argument against this reading is the point in the poem at which such a confident assertion stands. It interrupts the description of disaster that otherwise continues from the beginning of verse 3 to the middle of verse 6. In spite of this, however, one can understand the poet expressing this kind of confidence in a setting where his previous danger is recollected from a position of safety. The psalm thus contains an alternating blend of cries of distress and expressions of a determined faith, as here.

A rendering of would never see your holy Temple again is perfectly appropriate if it suggests not only seeing, but also being in the holy Temple again. It is not merely seeing the Temple from a distance, but participating in Temple worship.

In many languages Temple is rendered as “your house” or “where you dwell.” In verse 4 the reference is to the Temple in Jerusalem, but in verse 7 the reference may be to the Temple of God in heaven.

In this context the term rendered holy should be one that is appropriate to any object that is dedicated exclusively to the service or worship of God, applicable, for example, in such phrases as “holy vestments,” or “holy garments,” or “holy incense.” If there is no term that seems satisfactory for this context, it is of course possible to employ a descriptive phrase so that holy Temple could be rendered as “the building dedicated to your worship” or “… consecrated to your worship.”

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 .