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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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

The country of India and Media and Lydia: The problem here is that we know from other sources that Antiochus~III was not forced to give up control of India and Media. His empire did not even include India, though it did reach as far as that region. Rather than giving up Media, his control over that region actually seems to have been strengthened. Rome did indeed force him to give up all his lands in western Asia Minor, including Lydia. But why mention only Lydia? Commentators have long recognized that something is wrong here. The author could have his information wrong, or the Greek translator could have made errors, or scribes have made errors.

It is doubtful the author created the problem. If the author had only a vague idea where India and Media were, he knew that they were on the opposite side of the Seleucid Empire from Rome, and that Rome was in no position to force Antiochus to surrender them. The translator or scribes would have been more likely to be ignorant of the geography involved.

Goldstein adopts a textual solution. He argues a strong case that the Greek noun for “separation” at the end of verse 7 and the connector “and” at the beginning of verse 8 have been wrongly transcribed, and that the Greek translator had originally written the infinitive form of a verb, the third infinitive in a series, so that verses 7-8 should read “… he decreed that he … should pay a heavy tribute and give hostages and be separated 8 from….” (He emends diastolēn kai in Greek to read diastolēnai.) He then argues, less convincingly, that the three geographical names were a marginal note by an ignorant commentator that was copied into the text by a later scribe. Goldstein renders verses 7-8 as follows: “7 The Romans captured him alive and decreed that he and his successors on the throne should pay the Romans a heavy tribute and give hostages and be barred 8 from the fairest of their domains. These domains the Romans took from him and gave to King Eumenes.” (As noted above, the phrase “some of their best provinces” in verse 7 is actually in verse 8.)

In a footnote Traduction œcuménique de la Bible suggests another textual solution. It suggests that India is an error for “Ionia” and Media is an error for “Mysia.” This has much to commend it. In the case of each pair, the words resemble each other in Greek. Ionia and Mysia (two regions of western Asia minor) would be certainly less familiar than India and Media, so that a scribe (or perhaps even the Greek translator) could easily mistake the less familiar for the more familiar. Also, the combination of Ionia, Mysia, and Lydia is a fair representation of the land in Asia Minor that Antiochus actually did cede to Rome.

Goldstein’s textual change at the end of verse 7 is very attractive, and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible‘s textual suggestion in verse 8 is likewise attractive, but they cannot be both adopted without creating another problem. For not only do India and Media present a geographical problem and a historical problem, their grammatical form in Greek also presents a problem; it is not the expected form to follow the verb for “be separated from.”

A further problem is that it is not clear whether “their best provinces” refers to the best lands of Antiochus and his successors, or to the best lands of India, Media, and Lydia. In Greek it is ambiguous. We suppose it refers to those of Antiochus and his successors.

It may well be that no scholar has yet identified the real solution, but our guess is that the problem is textual in its origin and nature. For translators who wish to follow the Greek text of verses 7-8a as it stands, we suggest using Good News Bible as a model. In our judgment Good News Bible takes considerable liberty with the noun for “separation” at the end of verse 7, and we believe that the following footnote at the end of verse 8 would be appropriate: * To surrender … best lands; Greek unclear.

We prefer the following model for verses 7-8a even though it does not solve all the problems. However it is historically accurate and has some textual foundation.

• 7 They took him alive and forced him to agree that he and his descendants would pay large sums of money to Rome and would send hostages to Rome. 8 They forced him to give up control over his most beautiful regions, the lands of Ionia, Mysia, and Lydia [or, the lands of western Asia Minor].*
* Verse 8 in Greek is unclear.

These they took from him and gave to Eumenes the king: As Good News Bible‘s footnote reads, Eumenes is King Eumenes II, who ruled Pergamum 197–158 b.c. Pergamum was a city in Mysia, in the northwestern part of Asia Minor. Eumenes was one of the rulers spoken of in verse 1, who understood the advantages of being on the same side as the Romans, and who allied themselves with them. He convinced Rome to go to war with Antiochus. If our model given above for the first half of verse 8 is chosen, translators may render this half as “The Romans gave all this territory to King Eumenes, a king in that area [or, a local king].”

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.