king

Click here to view graphically

Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:

(Click or tap here to see details)

  • Piro: “a great one”
  • Highland Totonac: “the big boss”
  • Huichol: “the one who commanded” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Ekari: “the one who holds the country” (source: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Una: weik sienyi: “big headman” (source: Kroneman 2004, p. 407)
  • Pass Valley Yali: “Big Man” (source: Daud Soesilo)
  • Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
  • Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))

Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:

“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”

(Source: Faye Edgerton in The Bible Translator 1962, p. 25ff. )

See also king (Japanese honorifics).

Translation commentary on 1 Kings 22:26

Seize is literally “take.” Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have translated it according to the context. The verb is second person singular, which Good News Translation makes clear by adding “one of his officers.”

Take him back to Amon … and to Joash: Take him back suggests that Micaiah had previously been with Amon and Joash. New Revised Standard Version says “return him.” The renderings “take him” (Good News Translation) and “hand him over” (New Jerusalem Bible) fail to express this sense.

Amon the governor of the city: This is the only mention of Amon (other than in 2 Chr 18.25, the parallel text), who was the ruler of the city of Samaria. The Hebrew noun rendered governor has a wide range of meanings depending on the context. It may refer, for example, to a representative of a king, an important person, a military commander, or a civilian administrator. The context here seems to suggest a city official. For the governor of the city, a general translation such as “the city official” (NET Bible) or “the city leader” is recommended. Since Samaria has not been mentioned since verse 10, the city may be explicitly identified in translation as “Samaria” (so Parole de Vie).

Ahab refers to his own son as Joash the king’s son. A number of translations say “Prince Joash” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, Peregrino). However, it is possible to understand the reference to the king’s son in two other ways.

• (a) There is some archaeological evidence that the king’s son was an official title given to one of the king’s officials, perhaps the person in charge of prisoners and state security (also Jer 36.26; 38.6). Therefore, it may be that Joash was not the king’s biological son, but was rather an official in the royal court. And even if he was a biological son, it may be his function that is in focus here rather than his biological relationship to the king.

• (b) As noted in the comments on 1 Kgs 20.1, some interpreters think that Benhadad in chapters 20 and 22 is Benhadad I, who was king early in the ninth century B.C. and is referred to in 1 Kgs 15.16-22 and in the parallel text in 2 Chr 16.1-6. Other interpreters think the reference is to Benhadad II (2 Kgs 13.3-7, 22-25), who ruled later, at the end of the ninth century during the reign of King Joash of Judah. Still other interpreters consider the Benhadad of 1 Kgs 20 and 22 to be an otherwise unknown king who reigned between Benhadad I and Benhadad II. If the reference here is to Benhadad II and the stories about his reign have been incorrectly placed in the reign of Ahab and his sons Ahaziah and Joram, then the Joash mentioned here in verse 26 is the son of Jehoahaz (2 Kgs 13.10), and not the son of Ahab.

In light of the difficulties in knowing for certain the identity of Joash, the best solution may be to translate the text literally and then indicate in a footnote that the king’s son may be a title of a royal official rather than a reference to one of the king’s own sons.

According to Revised Standard Version, the sentence begun in this verse continues in verse 27. But it may be wise to bring the sentence to an end here and begin a new one in the following verse.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .