Biblical and Theological Commentary on Tolkien's Translation of Jonah
(avg. read time: 9–18 mins.)
One of Tolkien’s most widely read works published before his death is one which many at the time were not even aware was his work: the translation of Jonah for the Jerusalem Bible. Of course, what appears in the published volume has been subjected to significant editing. The unedited version was only released in the 2010s.1 Tolkien himself had planned to revise it through more interaction with Hebrew, but this revision was something he never completed, like so many of his projects.
While I include this entry as part of my long-running series of Biblical and Theological Commentaries on Tolkien’s work, it will be formatted differently. We will first explore what was going on behind this translation. Then I will review the translation work itself. We will then consider how the book connects with his fictional work, including theological themes therein.
Background
The same issue of the Journal of Inklings Studies that provided Tolkien’s translation also includes Brendan N. Wolfe’s helpful companion piece.2 This article includes information on Fr. Alex(ander) Jones,3 the architect of the Jerusalem Bible translation, as well as his work on the same to provide the English equivalent of the French precursor La Bible de Jérusalem. The expanded published collection of Tolkien’s letters that came out a couple years ago also includes some letters from Tolkien on the matter that we will reference as we go.
The initial plan appears to have been a translation of the French text into English, as Jones himself stated in a letter to Tolkien (dated 7 March 1957):
That a translator is at a disadvantage when he has no immediate contact with the originals is a sad truth and I do feel that I am asking too much of all the gallant co-operators. But these disadvantages are comfortably outweighed – or so it seems to me – by the difficulties of any other course. Thus, very few who read Hebrew can write English; of these, fewer still are Catholics; of these fewer few still fewer will attempt it – the Westminster Version from the originals is not nearly half-done (and never will be finished) after thirty years! Secondly, the work of translation from the Hebrew would have to be preceded by an enormous amount of textual criticism for which our few Catholic Scripture scholars in England have not the equipment (not having a theological university is an immense drawback – we are all hacks in seminaries). And so on. So don’t be discouraged. I’m sure it’s work very well worth while. As you know, we are not trying to oust any existing version; we just want to provide a good, reliable alternative. The ultimate issue is in God’s future.4
However, nearly a decade later Jones wrote in the editor’s foreword of the Jerusalem Bible that although the introductions and notes are direct translations from the French:
The translation of the biblical text itself could clearly not be made from the French. In the case of a few books the initial draft was made from the French and was then compared word for word with the Hebrew or Aramaic by the General Editor and amended where necessary to ensure complete conformity with the ancient text. For the much greater part, the initial drafts were made from the Hebrew or Greek and simultaneously compared with the French when questions of variant reading or interpretation arose. Whichever system was used, therefore, the same intended result was achieved, that is, an entirely faithful version of the ancient texts which, in doubtful points, preserves the text established and (for the most part) the interpretation adopted by the French scholars in light of the most recent researches in the fields of history, archaeology, and literary criticism. (v–vi)
Tolkien’s initial work belonged to an early stage in the making of this translation that Jones claims was a distinct minority in the end. Wolfe’s article contains some interesting excerpts of his correspondence with Tolkien that show how eager he was to have Tolkien involved.5
Before Tolkien got to work on Jonah, he first sent a test translation of the first chapter of Isaiah based on the French text.6 Unfortunately, I have not seen this text, but Jones was quite pleased with it, as he said in a letter dated 12 March 1957, “In truth I should be content to send you all that remains of the Bible, with great confidence, but there is a limit to generosity and opportunity!”7 At the least, Jones tried to get Tolkien to work on a translation of Joshua as well, but nothing ever came of it. He had even asked him that same year to work as an editor to improve and regularize the style of other translations. He had sent him a copy of the translation of Job, but as Wolfe says, “What became of this we do not know.”8 He would ultimately send his final draft along to Jones in April of 1961.
Letters #214a (4 February 1959) and #228a (13 February 1961) to Fr. Alex Jones illustrate Tolkien’s willingness to be part of the project, but his participation inevitably became frustrated by other obligations, both academic and otherwise. In the latter letter, Tolkien promised to send along his work on Jonah as soon as possible with gratitude that Jones had reserved this work for him and with his apologies: “I am very sorry not to have been a proper partner. I am at the moment stuck in the thirteenth century, with a time limit over my head of the end of this month.” This is in reference to his work on the text of Ancrene Wisse, which would be published in 1962.9
He had previously mentioned in Letter #196a (24 April 1957) to his grandson Michael George Tolkien that he was presently immersed in Hebrew. This was to assist him with what he hoped to be a more robust translation of Jonah, which, as noted, had previously been done from the French predecessor to the Jerusalem Bible.10 Besides recording his impressions of Hebrew,11 this letter is noteworthy for the reflections he provides on Jonah itself: “Incidentally, if you ever look at the Old Testament, and look at Jonah, you’ll find that the ‘whale’ – it is not really said to be a whale, but a big fish – is quite unimportant. The real point is that God is much more merciful than ‘prophets’, is easily moved by penitence, and won’t be dictated to even by high ecclesiastics whom he has himself appointed” (italics original).
Indeed, for as much as the great fish, often described as a “whale” today, is a pervasive aspect of iconography associated with Jonah, it is really more of a plot device, an instrument of God’s will in bringing Jonah where he needs to be from where he had been. It is briefly referenced in chs. 1 and 2, but it plays no role once it has vomited Jonah onshore to make his way to Nineveh. It is not there for the climax or resolution, and its importance in ch. 2—beyond its role in conveyance—is more about being a “setting” for Jonah’s prayer that gives meaning to how Jonah is in Sheol (also see here).
A later letter, Letter #289d (18 October 1966 to Father Alex Jones), also shows Tolkien’s reflections on a translation issue outside of his assigned text. He was criticizing the translation Ronald Knox made of the Vulgate that was used in English Catholic services at the time. Knox had rendered John 4:50 as “thy son is to live.” But after noting the Greek—and mentioning that his knowledge of the language is fading, likely due to the dozens of others he had some facility in reading—he says that this translation does not make sense. The RSV and JB that he examined also rendered the verb as “will live.” But he notes that the Greek is a present, and he does not see how either a jussive or a future sense works here. For comparison, he notes Matt 9:18, which does use the future tense, though he observes that the Jerusalem Bible is also defective in its translation there, as it makes the text more like Mark 5:23 than it is in the Greek. These were points he addressed to Jones after he had received a copy of the Jerusalem Bible from him for his contribution.
Comments on Translation
The following will not be a comprehensive review of Tolkien’s translation (though I may do such a thing at a later time if there is expressed interest in it). Instead, I want to highlight certain features to review the quality of translation vis-à-vis the edited work, noteworthy elements of this translation compared to others, and aspects consonant with Tolkien’s fiction. In noting the consonances, I am not suggesting Tolkien’s reading of Jonah necessarily had a direct influence on these aspects of Tolkien’s work, but they are at least similarities worth observing.
A number of times, the JB translation is less literal than Tolkien’s work and arguably represents a downgrade. These include the following:
1:1 and 3:1 refer to how the word of Yahweh “came” (היה) to Jonah, but this was revised to “was addressed.”
This word in 1:1 commands Jonah to “cry to” (קרא) the Ninevites because their wickedness has come up “to my face” (לפני), which became revised to “inform” and “became known to me.”
Tolkien’s translation of the last sentence in 1:6 says, “Maybe God will have thought for us and we shall not perish’.” But this is revised in the JB to “Perhaps he will spare us a thought and not leave us to die.” The term for “God” is repeated here in the Hebrew, unlike in the revision, and the subject of the second verb is the people on the boat, not God (as implied by “leave”).
The question in 1:8 of “to what people do you belong?” is revised to “what is your nationality?”
The sailors ask what they should do in 1:11 “so that the sea may grow calm for us,” but this is revised to “to make the sea grow calm for us,” although the Hebrew lacks the infinitive or the implication that the sea is not the ultimate subject here.
The editors also made an odd revision decision in 1:14 to change Tolkien’s more fitting “You, Yahweh, have done as you have pleased” to “You, Yahweh, have acted as you have thought right.”
In the next verse, they replaced the more descriptive action of the sea (and accurate to the Hebrew) as having “abated its fury” with the statement that the sea “grew calm again.”
In 1:17 (2:1 in the Hebrew, which the Jerusalem Bible follows through the end of ch. 2) and 4:6–8, Tolkien’s translation of the French reads the verb מנה as “appointed,” whereas the editors render it as “arranged.”
The translation of “passed over” in 2:3 (2:4 Hebrew) is more appropriate for עבר, but the editors adjusted this to the water imagery to read “washed over.”
The translation of עלה as “raised up” in 2:6 (2:7 Hebrew), which is fitting both for its rendering of the hiphil sense here and for its linking with resurrection imagery, is edited to the simpler “lifted.”
The rendering of כדבר יהוה in 3:3 simply conveys that something happened “according to the word of Yahweh,” but the first part of this phrase is edited to interpret it (not incorrectly) as the less literal “in obedience to.”
“But the day after at the coming of dawn” in 4:7 is edited to the flatter “at dawn the next day,” which entirely omits the verb (עלה) conveying the dawn’s rising.
However, that is not to suggest that the editors only ever downgraded the translation. Many changes are lateral in character representing neither improvement nor detraction. At other times, the changes do make for a better translation:
Tolkien’s translation refers to the sea rising “more and more” in 1:11, 13, but the editors better capture the sense of סער by saying it was growing “rougher and rougher” in the tempest.
Tolkien’s original translation of the French rendered 2:2 (2:3 Hebrew) as the rough-sounding English “Out of the affliction in which I was I called upon Yahweh,” which the editors improved in a way more reflective of the Hebrew to read, “Out of my distress I cried to Yahweh.”
The improvement may simply be a matter of word order, as the original translation of 2:9 (2:10 Hebrew) was “From Yahweh comes salvation,” which the editors made to better match the Hebrew word order with “Salvation comes from Yahweh.” Of course, in neither case is “comes from” the best way of rendering the preposition ל.
The editor’s rendering of קרא as “preach” in 3:2 is at least closer to the sense than the simple “say” in Tolkien’s translation.
Tolkien’s translation of 3:5 in saying the people of Nineveh “believed the word of God” obscures the Hebrew that says they believed “in God,” as the editors rightly recognized.
The reference to the news reaching the king of Nineveh in 3:6 is presented as having reached “the ears of” the king in Tolkien’s translation, but this translates words that have no equivalent in the Hebrew (even implicitly), and so the editors rightly removed the three extra words.
At this point, we should compare certain parts of the translation with others. In some cases, the translation is comparable with a significant minority or even a majority of others, while in other cases it still stands out:
Tolkien translates the phrase חשׁבה לחשׁבר in 1:4 as “threatened to break up,” which conveys well the first verb’s sense as being something like “devising” or “planning.” In this respect, Tolkien was preceded by the RSV, and these translations also agree with the CSB/HCSB, CJB, ESV, NET, NIV, and NRSV.
Tolkien’s initial translation (noted above) of the phrase in 1:15 as the sea having “abated its fury” is not replicated by any major translation. Most have “ceased from its raging,” or some variation thereof. This is accurate, but perhaps not quite as good a description as Tolkien’s translation.
Conversely, the translation “belly of Sheol” in 2:2 (2:3 Hebrew) is consistent with most translations. This also marks an improvement over some old translations like the KJV and DRA that rendered this as “belly of hell,” which is not accurate to the Hebrew.
Tolkien’s translation referring to the waters being about Jonah “to my throat” (2:5/2:6 Hebrew [עד־נפשׁ]) has only rarely been followed (cf. in 2:5/2:6 EXB and NCV). “Throat” or “neck” is an acceptable translation option for נפשׁ in how it is related to breath/the breath of life, although it is rare to see it used that way (for example, see Ps 69:1 as a case that is sometimes translated this way).
The noteworthy phrase “roots of the mountains” in 2:6 (2:7 Hebrew) of Tolkien’s translation that was retained in the published translation naturally catches the eyes of Tolkien fans, but it is not all that unusual. We see this translation in the RSV, which preceded Tolkien’s work, as well as in other translations like AMP, EHV, ESV, GNT, ISV, NASB, NIV, NLT, and NRSV.
Finally, we should mention the translation of the consequence for serving worthless idols in 2:8 (2:9 Hebrew), which is that they “forfeit the grace that was theirs.” This translation is not precisely followed elsewhere, although the ISV is close, and some translations like DRA and KJV are not far off. The term “grace” is ultimately a translation of the Hebrew term חסד, which has a number of senses.
Jonah and Tolkien’s Fiction
Fans of Tolkien are not going to find much of a distinctly Middle-earth flavor, so to speak, in this translation, as that is not the point of the project here. One can find that flavor in various translations of prayers that he made (as mentioned in my last entry). But it is still worth considering what consonances there are between Tolkien’s project on Jonah and his fictional work.
First, I have noted on many occasions (such as in the series here, here, here, and here) how divine providence is a pervasive theme in Tolkien’s fiction. We see the operations of divine providence on a number of occasions in this short book, particularly in YHWH’s actions of appointing things to happen (2:1; 4:6–8), as well as in other cases (1:4, 7, 15; 2:11). The theme is also conveyed by YHWH’s often stated and pervasively assumed sovereignty. Of course, a difference here is that unlike most of Tolkien’s fiction and unlike some elements of the biblical narrative (such as Ruth, Esther, and various smaller portions of other books), the narrator is often explicit about God’s action and involvement.
Second, as I mentioned previously, some Tolkien fans might have their attention drawn to the description “the roots of the mountains.” The recap of The Hobbit in the prologue of LOTR describes Bilbo as going “down to the roots of the mountains, until he could go no further” (Prologue). As Gandalf is narrating Gollum’s thoughts as he plans to dwell underneath the Misty Mountains, he says, “It would be cool and shady under those mountains. The Sun could not watch me there. The roots of those mountains must be roots indeed; there must be great secrets buried there which have not been discovered since the beginning” (I/2). Sam’s song of the Troll (known as “The Stone Troll,” “The Troll Song,” “Rhyme of the Troll,” and so on) describes Tom’s folly in kicking the Troll in his seat because “As well set your boot to the mountain’s root, / For the seat of a troll don’t feel it” (I/12). A description of the Fellowship’s journey through Moria uses the phrase “to the mountains’ roots” (II/4). Gandalf will later describe Treebeard as having taken Merry and Pippin to his dwelling “by the roots of the mountains” (III/5; cf. the description of Treebeard’s dwelling in III/4). (Similarly, Gandalf speaks of the “roots of Mindolluin” [V/4].) Obviously, Tolkien did not invent this expression, but it is the most noteworthy piece of reminiscent language and imagery.
Third, the translation of 2:8 (2:9 in Hebrew) as “Those who serve worthless idols forfeit the grace that was theirs” is especially intriguing. It resonates less with the precise terminology of Tolkien’s fiction as it does with the theology of sub-creation that is the foundation of his fiction (posts on that subject here, here, and here will be updated in my forthcoming book). In particular, Tolkien could describe the capacity of sub-creation as a divine grace given to his image-bearers, which corrupts the grace given to them and the higher, God-glorifying purposes for which it was given. Because of how it deceives and directs away from God, this misuse of sub-creation for idolatry could rightly be described as forfeiting the (higher) grace that was meant for God’s image-bearers. And so God’s gracious redemption of fallen humans is needed. Of course, my earlier remark should not be taken to mean that there are not many manifestations of grace in Tolkien’s fiction and even uses of the terminology (as I have noted in my commentaries), but such things are not as close of a match to this use.
Fourth, Jonah resonates with how Tolkien’s work shows God’s concern for the pre-Christian and non-Israelite world. I have shown at some length in ch. 2 of my Hobbit book, which I will revisit in ch. 3 of my forthcoming book, how Tolkien’s world is set in an imaginary time before Christ and before Israel in the history of our own world. It is a setting fit for narrated operations of Providence consistent with what Tolkien observed in his work on Beowulf, and this is how Tolkien describes God’s work in his fiction. God was at work in preparation for the gospel (or praeparatio evangelica), since God has not left himself without a witness to all nations (Acts 14:15–17; cf. 17:22–29; Rom 1:18–20). This applies to Tolkien’s fictional setting as to the actual history of our world. There come times when God works through sending prophets and proclaimers with direct messages, as with this time for the Ninevites, but this is one piece of God’s care for nations like the Assyrians of Nineveh. Tolkien’s fiction shows others, as does Jonah’s narrative.
Fifth, we have also explored in the aforementioned links on Tolkien’s theology of sub-creation—as well as commentaries on his fiction—the significance of the element of eucatastrophe. That also resonates with Jonah’s story. It appears in a minor way for Jonah in his salvation from the belly of the fish, as his own prayer is an anticipation of the same. Jonah’s proclamation to Nineveh leads to a sudden, joyous turn of events for them whereby they receive God’s gracious favor in sparing them his judgment. For Jonah, this is not an unexpected turn, of course, and that is why he did not want to proclaim the message to Nineveh. While Jonah is not inclined to see the ending as a happy one, the actual outcome of his proclamation is eucatastrophic for the Ninevites and anticipates what is still to come with the gospel. In fact, the eucatastrophe of the gospel (as Tolkien describes the resurrection in his “On Fairy-Stories”) is described in terms of the sign of Jonah (Matt 12:39–40; 16:4; cf. Luke 11:29–30).
The unedited translation can be found in J. R. R. Tolkien (translator), “Tolkien’s Translation of Jonah,” Journal of Inklings Studies 4.2 (October 2014): 5–10.
Brendan N. Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” Journal of Inklings Studies 4.2 (October 2014): 11–26.
His name was Alexander, but he signed his letters as Alex.
Quoted in Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” 16.
Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” 18–19.
Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” 19.
Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” 20.
Wolfe, “Tolkien’s Jonah,” 21.
As Tolkien himself says in this letter, “I am hoping when I retire to get included in a new Bible-translation team that is brewing. I have passed the test: with a version of the Book of Jonah. Not from Hebrew direct!”
“If you want a beautiful but idiotic alphabet, and a language so difficult that it makes Latin (or even Greek) seem footling – but also glimpses into a past that makes Homer seem recent – then that is the stuff!”