hate

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated in English as “hate” or a form thereof is translated in Tabasco Chontal as “don’t want to see [the person who is hated].” (Source: John Beekman & Harwood Hess in Notes on Translation, March 1963, p. 1ff.)

See also hate.

son of

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “son of” in English is translated in all Icelandic Bible versions of the Icelandic Bible Society (latest edition 2007) in parallel with the Icelandic naming system . This means that for instance in Matthew 16:17 the name that is transliterated and translated in English as “Simon son of Jonah” becomes “Simon Jónasson” or in Isaiah 8:2 “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” becomes “Sakaría Jeberekíason” where in both cases the “-son” means “son of.”

In cases where “son of” does not refer to a literal father or perhaps stepfather but to lineage, however, this system is not used. So in Matthew 1:1 “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” is translated as “Jesú Krists, sonar Davíðs, sonar Abrahams.”

The referenced verses all have at least one instance where the Icelandic patronymic or matronymic naming system is used. (Source: Halldór Elías Guðmundsson)

See also daughter of.

self-referencing pronoun for king or queen

In Malay, the pronoun beta for the royal “I” (or “my” or “me”) that is used by royals when speaking to people of lower rank, subordinates or commoners to refer to themselves in these verses. This reflects the “language of the court because the monarchy and sultanate in Malaysia are still alive and well. All oral and printed literature (including newspapers and magazines) preserve and glorify the language of the court. Considering that the language of the court is part of the Malaysian language, court language is used sparingly where appropriate, specifically with texts relating to palace life.” (Source: Daud Soesilo in The Bible Translator 2025, p. 263ff.)

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (1Kings 22:8)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, the Jarai translation uses the inclusive pronoun, including everyone.

Jehoshaphat

The Hebrew and Greek that is transliterated as “Jehoshaphat” in English is translated in Spanish Sign Language with the signs for “king” and “mixup” referring to the fateful alliance with king Ahab of Israel in 1 Kings 22 and 2 Chronicles 18. (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Jehoshaphat” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

More information about Jehoshaphat .

complete verse (1 Kings 22:8)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Kings 22:8:

  • Kupsabiny: “Ahab responded, ‘There is still one person who is able to ask God. He is called Micaiah son of Imlah. But again I stay away from that person because he never prophesies anything good about me.’ Jehoshaphat said, ‘Do not speak like that.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “The King of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, "There is one other man to ask the LORD, but he is very displeasing to me, for he does not speak good prophecies concerning me. He only speaks words that are not good. He is Micaiah, son of Imlah."
    Jehoshaphat replied, "The King should not speak like this."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Ahab answered Jehoshafat, ‘There is still one whom we (incl.) could-ask of what can- the LORD -say — Micaya the child of Imla. But I (am) angry with him because he never prophesy anything good about me but always/[lit. pure] bad.’ Jehoshafat replied, ‘You should not say like that.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “The King of Israel replied, ‘There is one man we can talk to. We can ask him if he can find out what Yahweh wants. His name is Micaiah; he is the son of Imlah. But I hate him, because when he prophesies/tells what God says to him he never says that anything good will happen to me. He always predicts that bad things will happen to me.’
    Jehoshaphat replied, ‘King Ahab, you should not say that!’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Japanese benefactives (-naide)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. Here, -naide (ないで) or “do not (for their sake)” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).”

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

king

Click here to view graphically

Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Ge’ez, 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).