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 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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Samuel 18:13

On the other hand: the conjunction used here usually means “or,” but it is sometimes translated “otherwise” (Anchor Bible and Goldman). However, since it marks a kind of contrast between what the soldier actually did and what he might have done, some languages may prefer a conjunction like “But” or “However.”

If I had dealt treacherously: the understanding of the verb here depends to some degree on the solution to the textual problem that follows immediately. The verbal expression itself seems to mean “be reckless” or “act in an imprudent manner.”

Against his life: the Hebrew text has “against his life [or, soul],” but in the margin the ancient scribes indicated that it should be read “against my life [soul],” as in the margin of New Revised Standard Version, “at the risk of my life.” Several English versions and commentators propose following the marginal reading rather than the reading in the text. New International Version, for example, says “if I had put my life in jeopardy.” And New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “if I betrayed myself” (similarly Anchor Bible). There seems to be no compelling reason to depart from the Hebrew text in this case.

The parenthetical statement about the king knowing everything that happens may fit better at the beginning or at the very end of the verse in many languages. Placing it in the middle as in Revised Standard Version may be distracting, since it interrupts an “if … then” statement. Similar statements are made about the king in 1 Kgs 10.3 and 2 Chr 9.2. The point is that if the soldier disobeyed King David’s orders he would surely be found out. This provides at least a part of the reason for his actions. While this is a general statement, some translations apply it specifically to the present situation. Revised English Bible, for example, says “the king would soon have known.”

You yourself: the emphatic form of the pronoun is used here and should be reflected in translation, if it is natural to do so. Some languages may begin “as for you….” As in 17.6, Fox‘s translation uses italic font for the pronoun you in order to show emphasis.

Would have stood aloof: more literally “you would have placed yourself before [or, opposite] me.” This may be understood in the sense of testifying against another person. Compare Nueva Biblia Española, “You would have put yourself against me.” But most versions take it as meaning to be indifferent. The following renderings are typical of English versions: “you would have let me take the blame” (Contemporary English Version); “you would have kept well out of it” (Revised English Bible); “you would have disassociated yourself from me” (New Jerusalem Bible); “you would have left me to my fate” (Moffatt); and “you would have done nothing to protect me” (Biblia Dios Habla Hoy).

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

respectful form of "do" (nasaru)

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between. One way to do this is through the usage of lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.

In these verses, nasaru (なさる), the respectful form of suru (する) or “do” is used. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )