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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Maccabees 8:5

Philip, and Perseus king of the Macedonians, and the others who rose up against them, they crushed in battle and conquered: Philip refers to Philip~V of Macedon, who ruled 220–179 b.c. He is not same Philip mentioned in 1Macc 1.1. Perseus was his son, the last king of Macedon, who ruled 179–168 b.c. They were both defeated by Roman forces, Philip in 197, Perseus in 168. After Perseus was defeated, Macedon became a Roman province. The Macedonians is literally “Kittim” (see the comments on 1Macc 1.1). Here the Macedonians or “Macedonia” is an appropriate translation. Philip, and Perseus king of the Macedonians may be expressed as “Philip and Perseus who had ruled Macedonia.”

The Greek expression rendered and the others who rose up against them does not say or imply that other kings joined Philip and Perseus against Rome, as Good News Bible has it. The others who rose up against them (literally “those who rose against them”—the word “others” is not there) may simply be a restatement of the same idea in verse 4, in which case it can be rendered “and others who dared oppose them.” But why would the author say the same thing again? There is a problem here with the presence of the word rendered and in Greek. The Hebrew prefix meaning “and” can be used to introduce a relative clause. If this is what the author meant, then the Greek translator should have used “who.” Goldstein accepts this solution by rendering the whole clause as “who had attacked them.” We believe this is the most reasonable explanation.

For this verse Good News Bible can be interpreted as saying that the Romans defeated Philip and Perseus and a number of other kings in one grand battle, which is not intended at all. Revised Standard Version can be interpreted as saying that the Romans defeated King Perseus of Macedon, some other person named Philip, as well as other people who had rebelled against those two, none of which is intended. A better model for this verse is:

• There were two particular kings whom the Romans overwhelmed and crushed in battle: Philip and Perseus of Macedonia, who dared to oppose them.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.