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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 2 Chronicles 25:3

And as soon as …: In Hebrew this verse begins with the verbal transition that is sometimes rendered “Now it came to pass” (King James Version). Like Good News Translation, most versions omit it here. As soon as renders a Hebrew conjunction which usually indicates that two situations happened at the same time, or at nearly the same time. Another way to render it is “Once” (New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh).

The royal power was firmly in his hand is literally “the kingdom was strong/firm upon him.” The Revised Standard Version rendering may be unduly influenced by the parallel text in 2 Kgs 14.5, which reads literally “the kingdom was strong/firm in his hand.” The expression here may be more naturally rendered in some languages as “his power was absolute,” “he had complete control of Judah,” or “Amaziah was well established as king” (New Living Translation).

He killed his servants who had slain the king his father: His servants refers to Zabad and Jehozabad (see 2 Chr 24.25-26). As is often the case in the Old Testament, the term servants refers to high-level officials of the king’s court rather than to domestic household servants. A literal rendering is therefore likely to be misunderstood in many languages. These officials had assassinated Joash, the father of Amaziah, and therefore had to be executed. The king his father refers to Joash. Bible en français courant makes this explicit by saying “his father, King Joash.” Good News Translation omits the information that Amaziah’s father was also a king. But since this is the beginning of a new section, and since not all men who became kings were sons of kings, this information should be included here. It may be more natural in some languages to reverse the order of the words in this phrase by saying “his father who was the king.” It may also be important to make it clear that Amaziah’s father was no longer considered king. A model that does this is “his father when he was king.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .