The notes comparing the ancient translations of the Masoretic Text (M), i.e., the Septuagint (G), the Vulgate (V), and the Peshitta (S), focus on the most salient differences among them. While some of these differences likely reflect a conscious attempt to refine or interpret M on the part of the translator, others are better explained in terms of the limits of the target language or even the translator’s knowledge of Hebrew. Hypotheses regarding the reasons for translation decisions are typically given within each note, though not always. In an attempt to avoid prejudicing one Vorlage or tradition over another, we shall denote extra text or textual additions with the word plus; likewise lacking, missing or omitted text will be denoted with the word minus. These will always be italicized.

Editions Consulted

• M: See supra §1.1
• G: Ziegler Joseph (ed.), Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingenis editum, vol. 13: Duodecim prophetae, 2^nd ed., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
• V: Weber Robert and Gryson Roger (eds.), Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem, 5^th ed., Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2007.
• S: Khayyath Georgius Ebed-Jesus and David Clement Joseph (eds.), Biblia sacra juxta versionem simplicem quae dicitur Peschitta, 3 vols., Mosul: Typis Fratrum Praedicatorum, 1887–1891. Although this is not a critical edition, it is nearly identical to the text of the Leiden edition: Gelston Anthony, Dodekapropheton – Daniel-Bel-Draco (The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version 3/4) Leiden: Brill, 1980. Note, however, that variant readings are taken from the Leiden edition.

General Observations

• In general, there is little evidence to suggest that G, V, and S had adifferent Vorlage from the text of M.
• The translations of G, V, and S all provide word-for-word translations of M, and sometimes this pushes the limits of the syntax of the target language.
• Both V and S seem to have consulted G when translating M. In the case of V, this is certain since Jerome speaks about this in his commentary (→Jerome Comm. Ion.).
• Even where differences are the result of a transmission error or a misreading of M, these can result in a meaningful theological shift or nuance. For example, whereas in M-Jon 3:4 Jonah warns the Ninevites that the city will be overturned in forty days, in G it is only three days. This is likely not an intentional change, though it inspired patristic reflections on the nature of God’s mercy and the importance of repentance (Christian Tradition Jon 3:4b).

Septuagint (G–Jonah)

Nota bene—For proper names of people and places, the vocalization of the text follows the literal English transliteration of the Greek. Nineveh is rendered Nineue, Tarshish as Tharsis, Jonah as Ionas, etc.

Initial Observations

• Given the high level of congruence between M and G—higher than any other extant Hebrew text—it is assumed here that the Vorlage of G was essentially the same text as M.

• Although the general quality of the Greek translation of Jonah is similar to that of the other Twelve Minor Prophets, the Greek Jonah is arguably the closest to the Hebrew text represented by M (compare Amos, Habakkuk).

• Much debate has occurred over the issue of the number of translators for this corpus. This volume’s translators follow Ziegler and hold that the evidence supports the hypothesis that a single translator (perhaps later corrected) is responsible for the present form of the text.

Tight Correspondence to M

Overall, G-Jonah maintains the structure and syntax of M, which does not always result in idiomatic Koine Greek (e.g., Jon 3:3b), and therefore may be characterized as “translation Greek,” an aspect that we have attempted to convey in our own translation of G. Further, G-Jonah is more or less an isomorphic translation in which the translator renders each Hebrew word with one Greek word.

• For example, the isomorphic rendering of the auxiliary verb hlk in Jon 1:11,13b makes for a somewhat awkward translation and also necessitates some plusses (cf. also Jon 3:3b,4).  

In addition, there are several cognate accusatives that appear in the Hebrew text of Jonah, which are given rather wooden renderings in an atypical Greek. This was perhaps an intentional decision intended to capture, for instance, the emphatic power of the Hebrew’s repetition.

• For example, in Jon 1:10, the Hebrew reads, wayyı̂rʾû hāʾănāšı̂m yirʾâ gᵉdôlâ (lit. “and the men feared a great fear”) while the Greek reads kai ephobêthêsan hoi andres phobon megan (lit. “and the men feared a great fear”).

The idiomatic nature of the Hebrew, better translated as, “the men were greatly afraid,” is lost through the Greek’s literalism.

Elsewhere, G likewise maintains the Hebrew’s intentionally repetitive vocabulary and phrases in order to capture the tension of upward and downward momentum throughout the narrative. Two important examples are:

• the consistent translation of the roots gādôl (“great”) and rā‘ā (“evil”);

• qûm lēk (“get up, go”) and yārad (“to go down”) are consistently rendered as anastêthi kai poreuthêti (“get up and go”; Jon 1:2; 3:2) and katabainô (“descend”; Jon 1:3,5; 2:7), respectively.

“Free” Translation Found in G

Although the translation style of the book is isomorphic, the translator takes license on a few occasions in rendering individual terms. Examples include:

• Jon 1:5: regchô (“snore”) for rdm (“sleep deeply”); 
• Jon 1:6c: diasozô (“save”) for ‘št (“think on”);
• Jon 1:9b: doulos kuriou (“a servant of the Lord”) for ‘ibrî (“Hebrew”).

In addition, there are a handful of places where G contains plusses compared to M—indicating either small differences in the textual tradition or the translators’ elaboration—though these do not drastically change the meaning of the text. A few examples are as follows:

•  Jon 1:2: the noun hê kraugê;
• Jon 3:2b: the prepositions kata and emprosthen;
• Jon 3:8: the participle legontes.  

Finally, the translation’s nuanced rendering of Hebrew kî-clauses testifies to the translator’s knowledge of Hebrew style. Instead of translating each in the same way, G draws from Greek’s broader prepositional arsenal in a way that preserves the integrity of the Hebrew while also presenting palatable Greek. This is, moreover, further evidence that the awkward, literal translations mentioned above were made intentionally.

Theological Outlook of M and G

On the whole, there is much theological continuity across M and G, albeit with some differences (for a detailed analysis of these differences cf. →Beck 2000; →Perkins 1987 ). Perhaps the most significant theological difference arises in Jon 3:7–10, which narrates the repentance of the Ninevites. In M, the king’s decree spans vv. 7–9, while it is limited to a single verse, v. 7, in G (Comparison of Versions Jon 3:8abc). Thus in the Hebrew, the king commands that sackcloth be worn and God besought so that He might relent (“Who knows? God may turn and relent”), but in G, the people don sackcloth and pray of their own accord, asking amongst themselves, “who knows if the god will change his mind and relent?” Although the difference between M and G may be due to the translator’s misconstrual of the Hebrew verbs, it proved theologically meaningful inasmuch as it invited the interpretation that the people of Nineveh went above and beyond their king’s orders to repent and also expressed a deep hope in the potential for God’s mercy (Christian Tradition Jon 3:4–10; Comparison of Versions Jon 3:9a). In any case, God’s response to the Ninevites (Jon 3:10) is the same between the versions.

Vulgate (V-Jonah)

The Weber-Gryson Vulgate (V) uses the following manuscripts for Jonah:

• Amiatinus (8^th c.) – primary witness.
• Cavensis (9^th c.) – primary witness.
• St. Gallen library mss. 193–567 (in part, 5^th c.) – secondary witness.
• Gallen library ms. 44 (8^th c.) – secondary witness.
• Maurdramni [Amiens library ms. 9] (772–781) – secondary witness.
• Orléans library ms. 17 (8^th–9^th c.) – secondary witness.
• The consensus codex (Φ) of Alcuin’s scriptorium exemplar (9^th c.) – secondary witness.
• Toletanus (10^th c.) – secondary witness.
• Legionensis 2 (960) – secondary witness.
• Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (→C)– edition consulted.
• Benedictine Vulgate (→BV), prepared by the Pontifical Abbey of St. Jerome in the City (Rome) – edition consulted.

Additionally V consulted commentaries in Corpus Christianorum and Sources chrétiennes for Jonah. For the cola et commata, we follow the Vulgate from the Pontifical Abbey of St. Jerome in Urbe (Rome) which V also employs.

The Weber-Gryson Vulgate (V) maintains a consistent spelling for proper nouns. By contrast, the editio maior from the Abbey of St. Jerome in-the-City follows the best manuscripts verbatim which, at times, exhibit inconsistent orthography for proper nouns.

As noted above, the Vorlage of V–Jonah corresponds quite closely to M. This is sensible given Jerome’s desire to translate directly from the Hebrew. In turn, the Weber-Gryson edition strives to bring V in line with M as much as the manuscript tradition allows, even if the readings chosen are not necessarily the most common or the most ancient. For example, in Jon 1:1, the Clementine Vulgate (→C) reads, surge et vade, following a tradition established by G. Weber-Gryson prefers, surge vade, which accords with M. The earliest attestation of the former reading is from the 8^th c., whereas the earliest witness to the latter is from the 9^th c. See also Jon 3:2 and Jon 1:6 (surge invoca, not surge et invoca).  

Thus, it is not surprising that V aligns frequently with M against G. Sometimes this agreement occurs at the level of innocuous syntax, such as the aforementioned use of conjunctions. At other times this is reflected in more significant features of the text.

• In Jon 3:7–9, V follows M in attributing a longer and more specific decree to the king and his nobles, whereas G limits it to v. 7. This emphasizes the king’s action, while G accentuates the response of the people. 
• The divine names in Jon 3:5 and Jon 3:10 have been aligned with the Hebrew (and Greek) version despite evidence in multiple primary and secondary Latin manuscripts to utilize “Lord” (Domino/us) rather than “God” (Deo/us). Thus, the example in Jon 3:5 has the men of Nineveh believing in God (or gods) rather than the Lord, while in Jon 3:10 it is God, rather than the Lord, who sees the Ninevites’ conversion “and showed mercy” (et misertus est).

At the same time, however, there are a few places where V does not align with M, and G could be considered closer: when God sees that the Ninevites had repented of their evil ways, he “relented” in M, and “changed his mind” in G. By contrast, V indicates that God “had mercy” on them, a more theologically acceptable rendering that locates the change not in God but in the Ninevites (Comparison of Versions Jon 3:9a).

Peshitta (S-Jonah)

As stated above, for our translation of S-Jonah we have followed the Mosul edition, which is nearly identical to the Leiden edition. Where proper names have a standard English equivalent, this spelling has been used; for example, “Jonah” is used throughout the translation for the title character’s name, though “Yawnān” would be a more faithful rendering of the Syriac spelling. For less standardized names, the vocalization of the Mosul edition has been followed.

It seems likely that the Syriac translator consulted G in the process of translating M. While Hebrew syntax and cognates are largely preserved throughout the Syriac text, a few minor deviations may have been influenced by the Greek.

• For example, in M the ship captain suggests that God might “think upon” (yit‘aššēt) those aboard the struggling ship, which is rendered in G with diasozô, a verb that most often means “save,” but can also mean “keep in mind.” Thus, it is plausible that S did not understand M, consulted G, and translated nepṣᵉyan (“he might save us”; Comparison of Versions Jon 1:6c ).

• Also of note is the apparent preservation of the Greek postpositive de: three out of four occurrences of the word in G-Jonah appear in S as dyn, while the Hebrew features no specifically contrastive particle or conjunction in these places.

While the Syriac translation is largely a faithful, word-for-word rendering of the Hebrew text—with a few translation decisions guided by G—there are a few places where a lexeme in S does not seem to correspond to anything in M or G.

• At Jon 3:5 M and G have the king of Nineveh removing his robe in order to don sackcloth; S, on the other hand, states that the king removed his crown. 
• At Jon 4:7 M and G report that after the worm attacked the gourd plant, the plant “withered”; at the same point in the Syriac, it says rather, the worm “cut it [i.e., the gourd] off.” 

Inconsistencies like these with no immediately apparent linguistic or theological motivation are difficult to explain.

In addition, there are a few minor differences between M (and G) and S that may reflect a specific theological reading of the text.

• In Jon 3:10, after the Ninevites have repented of their evil ways, M and G indicate that God “relented” from the “evil” he had planned to do to the city, but S says that God “turned his fierce anger away from them.”

This translation may be intended to mitigate the theologically problematic suggestion that God would do evil or need to repent.

• Further, in Jon 4:8 when Jonah wishes for death, he simply states that death is better than life in M and G. In S, though, Jonah first emphasizes God’s agency (“It has come into your hands, Lord”) and then, curiously, adds, “For I am not better than my fathers”—a line which does not appear in either M or G.

While the meaning of this line in context is somewhat opaque, it does seem to identify Jonah’s flawed behavior as a continuation of the legacy of previous generations, especially considering that Jonah’s words are a nearly verbatim repetition of Elijah’s words from S-1Kgs 19:4 (Comparison of Versions Jon 4:8c; Biblical Intertextuality Jon 1:1f). Considering these two apparent interventions in Jon 3:10,4:8, one might begin to assemble a tentative understanding of the Syriac translator’s reading of Jonah—that is, as a book emphasizing the stark difference between God’s limitless capacity for mercy and mankind’s comparative inadequacy throughout history.