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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Maccabees 1:35

And with those persons whom the king favored he exchanged many excellent gifts: The Greek here is difficult. It says literally “And to/with those whom the king favored, he received many fine things and he shared.” This verse raises several questions. First, what connection does it have with the establishment of the shrine in the previous verse? Second, who are those persons whom the king favored? Revised Standard Version (also Contemporary English Version) combines “received” and “shared” into exchanged, and assumes that gifts are involved. Good News Bible takes another approach (also favored by New English Bible, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and Abel). Good News Bible assumes that the initial clause should be read “And to/with those whom he favored,” leaving the king to be subject of the two verbs “received” and “shared,” and further assumes that this clause has been moved forward in the sentence for emphasis. If we understand the verse this way, it would read “And the king received [from it] many fine things, and shared [them] with those whom he favored.” The phrase “from it” assumes that the new holy place became a place where income was produced for the king and that phrase indeed appears in the Latin. Without inserting such a phrase, we may read “And the king took many fine things [or, much money] ….” This would have the gift-giving separated from anything produced on or by the shrine, and it would be one-sided—the king giving gifts, but not receiving any. If, as we are assuming, the shrine did produce income, we are not told how. Was the liquid (see verse 36) sold? Was admission charged to the holy place? This approach involves unanswered questions also, but we believe it is a more satisfactory approach than Revised Standard Version provides. Good News Bible may be used as a model, but we offer this alternative:

• The emperor received [or, made] a lot of money from this place, and he shared it with people who were in his good favor [or, whom he liked].

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.