The Size of Nineveh: Why FE Translations are Unreliable

Charles Halton was kind enough to send me his fascinating essay entitled:

“How Big Was Nineveh? Literal versus Figurative Interpretation of City Size,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 18 (2008) 193-207. The discussion is packed with interesting references. Its thesis, I think, is persuasive, but if it is, all English translations to date are misleading. Over at Halton's magnificent blog, a pdf  of the article is available.

According to Charles, in Jonah 3:3, the expression “a three days’ walk” is a figure of speech. That is, it was not meant to be taken literally, but allusively. Allusive expressions, except among stuffed shirts, are a staple of actual speech. For example, an expression I like to use is: “When I was knee-high to a grasshopper.” Any attempt to reduce this expression to a colorless abstraction misses the point.

But if “a three days’ walk” in Jonah 3:3 is a figure of speech like the example I just gave, then it will not do to translate with a formal equivalent. The only way to convey its sense is to translate along the following lines:

וְנִינְוֵה הָיְתָה עִיר־גְּדוֹלָה לֵאלֹהִים

מַהֲלַךְ שְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים

Nineveh was a God-awfully big city, larger than life, the size of Texas.¹

¹ An awe-inducing description of Nineveh, which was indeed a very large city. More literally, Nineveh was a big city from God’s own point of view; a three days’ walk in size. The author creates an accurate impression of the city’s immense size by language which is allusive in style, just as we say “knee-high to a grasshopper” to indicate young age.

Charles thinks otherwise, but if Jonah 3:3 seeks to create an accurate impression of the city’s immense size by literally inaccurate language, similar to the expression already cited, “when I was knee-high to a grasshopper,” this is probably the case in Jonah 3:4 as well, understood as a continuation of 3:3. It might be translated similarly:

וַיָּחֶל יוֹנָה לָבוֹא בָעִיר

מַהֲלַךְ יוֹם אֶחָד

Jonah began to go into the city, a third of its Texas-like breadth. ²

² More literally, Jonah began to go into the city, the distance of a day’s walk. The author continues to create an impression of the city’s immense size by allusive language. The city in Jonah 3:3 was said to be a three days’ walk in size. Jonah’s traversed a third of the city’s immensity, “a day’s walk,” before delivering his message of doom.

Halton suggests instead that “a day’s walk” in Jonah 3:4 is idiomatic for “a short ways” (205).  

The most compelling parallel cited by Halton to the use of language he sees in Jonah 3:3 is Aristotle’s description of Babylon, as a “city that has the circuit of a nation rather than a city, for it is said that when it was captured, a considerable part of it was not aware of it until three days later” (Politics 3.1.12).

To be sure, it might be argued that Aristotle actually thought Babylon was so big it could have been captured without knowledge of the fact reaching all quarters until three days later. In the same way, it might be argued that the author of Jonah actually thought that Nineveh was a three days’ walk in breadth. I for one would not hold it against the author – or Aristotle with respect to Babylon – if he so thought. Personally, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the size of a city like Tokyo, Mexico City, or Los Angeles.

What’s the problem with formally equivalent (FE) translations of Jonah 3:3-4? There is no problem, if the author thought that Nineveh really was three day’s walk in size. But if instead he was speaking figuratively and allusively, as Halton contends, an FE translation of the verses misleads the reader. The allusive, figurative intent will go unnoticed.

Halton also empathetically but persuasively critiques the “creatively literal” translations of these verses in NIV, TNIV, and NLT. But that is another story, outside the scope of this humble post.

BTW, I uphold the use of the language of inerrancy applied to scripture. As a Reformer like Zwingli used it and as the current Catechism of the Catholic Church uses it, the language expresses truths that are undeniable to the believer but unconscionable by definition to the non-believer. Such an understanding of inerrancy does not require that God intervened with the author of book of Jonah in order to ensure that he accurately represented the size of Nineveh if it was the author’s impression that the city, which he may have known only by report, was bigger than it actually was. It is my understanding that the authors of the Bible were allowed to get details of this kind wrong. And why not? If indeed Aristotle and the author of the book of Jonah had inexact notions about the size of Babylon and Nineveh, respectively, paradoxically the inexactness merely and simply serves to make their points – true in and of themselves – more exactly.

Comments

[Wayne Leman]

Well, John, now that you've blogged that DE translations are no good and now, FE translations, we're left with what you love, the original languages. There's nothing like making jobs for ourselves when the economy is in a slump!

:-)

[Angela Erisman]

Hi John,

You say: "an FE translation of the verses misleads the reader."

I see your point, but I think this is only the case if one expects that a reader of the Bible in English translation will/should learn nothing of biblical culture (including tropes like a 3-day journey). By your argument, one would have to translate every idiom into a 21-st century American equivalent. To my mind, that destroys the cultural integrity of the Bible, and doesn't give the reader much credit, either, for his/her ability and/or interest in understanding the people who wrote this literature.

It's a bit like saying that when we're in Italy (where I just returned from), we should expect Italians to speak American English and use American cultural idioms, otherwise they're misleading us.

[John Hobbins]

Wayne,

Since I do not teach Hebrew for a living, your remark doesn't quite apply. But you are right nonetheless that I think that far more people could learn to read the biblical languages than currently do.

More generally, if the trend toward monolingualism were reversed in our culture, it might even save us from fighting needless wars. It might bring about more understanding between cultures. With respect to the Bible, it might foster a renaissance in theology, faith, and practice.

For the rest, I don't mind pointing out ways in which FE translations tend to be unreliable. That does not make FE translations "no good" - your words, not mine - but it does mean that they must used with caution, and are not likely to be understood rightly without sufficient grounding in biblical culture. This last point is one that Angela eloquently makes.

[Tim Bulkeley]

Nice post, except:
(i) If "three days" is idiomatic where are the examples of this idiom? Since figurative language that is not in "common use" is not an "idiom". I.e. I accept the language is figurative, but question whether it is idiomatic.
(ii) Why bring "inerrency" into it? It is a shibboleth in the USA, but seems of little concern elsewhere...

[John Hobbins]

Angela,

Welcome back! I hope you had a great time in the bel paese.

You make an excellent point. I am sympathetic to the view that the best point of departure for the study of the Bible, academic or otherwise, is a translation that is as literal as possible and as free as necessary. The best point of departure, of course, for those bereft of the original languages.

Once upon a time, the translation that fit that bill was the RSV, though it strayed from the MT all too often, with the result that the text it translated was neither fish nor fowl. The ESV, thankfully, returns to the MT on most occasions.

But a translation in the KJV-RSV-ESV trajectory, in order to be understood, requires, as you also point out, a fair bit of background knowledge of the biblical world.

My "Texas-style" translation, though it may be said to capture something of the intent of the language if Charles Halton is right, would not be my first choice to appear in a study Bible.

Something like the more literal translation I offer would be my first choice, with discussion in the notes about what is going on.

Another possibility, one that you might be sympathetic to, is that the book of Jonah is a deliberately "tall tale" which, like other tall tales, is admirably suited to entertain and teach at the same time.

If the book of Jonah is, in terms of genre, a "tall tale," that would not be in contradiction with the traditional perception (which I share) that the book conveys hard-edged cultural truths and is prophetic in perhaps more than one way.

[John Hobbins]

Tim,

You are my favorite mispeller. "Inerrency" probably sums up the discussion fairly well on most days.

You may not think "inerrancy" is relevant here, but I think it is for a variety of reasons, at least in the sense that for many people the world over, their faith as they currently understand it would be compromised if they were told that the book of Jonah in all details is not literally true. But if you think I am wrong about that, let me know. You are better traveled than I am.

I subscribe to a qualified version of inerrancy very close in many ways to that found in the Catholic Cathechism and re-discussed at the highest levels in Rome this past month.

So the issue may seem unimportant to you in some sense, but if that is your position, I'm not sure it reflects the current consensus among evangelicals, Catholics, and the Orthodox world-wide.

For the rest, Halton argues that "three days' walk" is not idiomatic per se, but in context.

[Charles Halton]

John, nice post, I appreciate it.

[Kevin P. Edgecomb]

Hmmm. Well, it could also just be a different reflection of how little some people are willing to walk! There are plenty of people I know who could easily take three days to cross the site of Nineveh, judging by their standard daily amount of walking: house to car, car to desk, desk to car, car to house. This could be another poor reflection on Jonah, in that respect, who's depicted in general like kind of a whiner in other respects as well. Anyhow, fun post!

[Karyn]

John said, "More generally, if the trend toward monolingualism were reversed in our culture, it might even save us from fighting needless wars. It might bring about more understanding between cultures."

I couldn't agree more. I find that Hebrew students who come from Africa and Asia understand firsthand the issues at stake in communication via a translation. I have much less work to do to show them the "practicality" of learning BH for those who desire to become "specialists in the Bible" than the struggle I have with their mono-lingual American counterparts.

[Peter Kirk]

John, congratulations on your conversion, on accepting the gospel that we have been preaching to you at BBB in the midst of much ridicule from yourself and others, that source language idioms cannot always be translated literally, but have to be adjusted to fit the understanding of the target audience. If you concede the point here, I assume you soon will, at least in principle, concerning "open someone's eyes", that this is an idiom which will not necessarily be understood correctly by all target audiences and so may sometimes need to be adjusted.

[John Hobbins]

Peter,

The gospel according to BBB strikes me as rather one-sided. However, the mild version of it that you propose in your comment is difficult to have issues with.

I've been field-testing NRSV Matthew 9:27-31 with interesting results. So far, the result is that "Their eyes were opened" is understood without difficulty to mean "their sight was restored." Those very words are often used to describe what takes place in the pericope.

I have to point out to people that we don't use the expression "open someone's eyes" to refer to restoration of physical sight. "Oh yeah," they reply, but they do not therefore suggest that the language of the translation be changed.

As far as I can see, it requires a linguist with an axe to grind to suggest that. I have already made clear why I think the removal of the figure of speech is too high a price to pay.

I am glad that there are translations like CEV (David Ker's favorite), NLT1 (Rick Mansfield's wife's favorite), and NLT2 out there. But they are not my first choice as a basis for serious Bible study. For prose, it is instructive to ponder why they translate as they do. In terms of ancient Hebrew poetry, you must admit, they leave a great deal to be desired.

NLTSB is excellent in many ways (in other ways not so much), and I'm glad to have it. But I say the same thing about ESVSB. Furthermore, I get more use out of the Jewish Study Bible, the HarperCollins Study Bible, and the NISB. Each one is less than perfect and each one has something to offer.