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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Kings 17:21

When he had torn Israel …: The beginning of this verse is awkward in Hebrew, and it is not clear what function the very first word in the verse serves. It may be understood as an emphatic particle or as a conjunction. As an emphatic particle, it may be translated “indeed” (New Jerusalem Bible). If it is understood as a conjunction, it may express a temporal relationship (so Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation) or a causal relationship (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “For”).

The first part of this verse refers to the division of the original united kingdom of Israel into two separate political units called Israel and Judah, or the northern and southern kingdoms. The verb torn implies a rather violent split, which is an accurate reflection of the historical facts. The implied subject of the verb is taken by many commentators and translators as Yahweh, as Good News Translation and Contemporary English Version make explicit. A few versions, however, seem to see it as referring to the action of Israel; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “Israel broke away…” and Knox says “the Israelites cut themselves off….” Yet in view of the clear meaning expressed in 1 Kgs 11.31 and the fact that the verb torn has the same subject as the preceding verbs in verse 20, it seems certain that Yahweh is the subject of the verb. Osty-Trinquet says “He had torn off…,” but capitalizing the pronoun “He” to show that it refers to God does not help the person who only hears the text read.

The house of David: See the comments at 1 Kgs 12.19. This is another way of referring to the southern kingdom of Judah, and in most cases it will be wise to clarify this. Good News Translation does so by using the term “Judah.” But it is also possible to say “David’s family” (Contemporary English Version).

They made Jeroboam the son of Nebat king: The pronoun they refers to Israel or “the people living in northern Israel” (Contemporary English Version). Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente translates the first part of this verse as follows: “When the Lord had snatched the kingdom of Israel from the dynasty of David, the Israelites of the North had made Jeroboam, son of Nebat, king.” Compare also Contemporary English Version: “Earlier, when the LORD took the northern tribes away from David’s family, the people living in northern Israel chose Jeroboam son of Nebat as their king.”

For Jeroboam the son of Nebat, see the comments on 1 Kgs 11.26.

Jeroboam drove Israel from following the LORD and made them commit great sin: The two clauses here do not refer to two entirely different matters. So the conjunction and between them may not be suitable. In some languages the order will be reversed and the translation will say something like “Jeroboam caused them to commit a terrible sin, which is to say, he made them stop following the LORD.” Both verbs here are causative in Hebrew and Jeroboam is the subject of both of them. The verb rendered drove occurs only here in the Masoretic Text and means “to separate” or “to remove from.” Most interpreters follow the verb that is a scribal correction in the margin of the Masoretic Text. But the two verbs are basically synonyms in this context.

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

SIL Translator’s Notes on 2 Kings 17:21

17:21a When the LORD had torn Israel away from the house of David,

Yahweh had cut/broken off ⌊the land of⌋ Israel from ⌊the territory ruled by⌋ David’s family/descendants.

-or-

When Yahweh removed Israel from under the rule/authority of the royal line of David,

-or-

⌊Earlier,⌋ Yahweh had stopped allowing the kings descended from David to rule the northern kingdom of Israel.

17:21b they made Jeroboam son of Nebat king,

The people living in Israel had then made Jeroboam the son of Nebat their king.

-or-

the people of Israel chose Jeroboam son of Nebat to be their king ⌊instead⌋ .

-or-

At that time the people of the northern kingdom caused Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, to rule as their king ⌊instead⌋ .

17:21c and Jeroboam led Israel away from following the LORD and caused them to commit a great sin.

But Jeroboam drew the people of Israel away from Yahweh. ⌊In this way⌋ he made them commit a great sin.

-or-

Jeroboam led Israel to commit a terrible sin in that he stopped them from worshiping Yahweh.

© 2020 by SIL International®

Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.

BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.