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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Daniel 11:27

The first part of this verse is very difficult to follow. Literally it reads “Those two, the kings, their heart toward evil, at one table, will speak a lie.” This has given rise to considerable restructuring and filling in of detail in Good News Translation.

During the course of his military campaign, Antiochus IV took his nephew (Ptolemy VI) prisoner but apparently treated him well (receiving him at his own table) in order to scheme and seek ways of seizing political power in Egypt.

Minds: literally “hearts.” In Hebrew the “heart” is the center of feelings, emotions, and passions, but it is also the source of intellectual activity. In this context both aspects may be in focus. There was intellectual activity based on a desire to do evil. Translators should use the term in their language that most naturally refers to such mental and emotional activity.

Mischief: this English translation is probably too weak. The corresponding word indicates something more profoundly evil than “dirty tricks” or mischief. Most versions prefer the term “evil.”

Lies: as indicated in the literal rendering above, this noun is singular in Hebrew, but it is collective in meaning and may therefore legitimately be translated as a plural. In some languages it will be essential to indicate to whom they lied. The meaning is clearly “… to each other,” as in Good News Translation.

At the same table: this clearly suggests the idea of eating. Some languages speak of “having hands in the same bowl,” “eating the same food,” or something similar.

To no avail: in many languages this may be better translated as a separate sentence: “Their conspiring will be of no use,” “Their plans will come to nothing,” or “They will not succeed in their schemes.”

For the end is yet to be at the time appointed: this is a rather free quotation of Hab 2.3, and its meaning is not altogether clear. It is generally thought that it indicates that human beings are incapable of putting an end to all their problems by themselves—God alone can do so, and that at the time he has fixed. Some possible models are “for the time fixed (by God) has still not yet come” or “because the end will still come at the time (which God has) appointed.”

A possible model for translating the whole verse is:

• Those two kings will want to harm each other. They will sit down to eat together at the same table, but they will lie to each other. And no matter what they decide, it will not help either one of them, because God is the one who has set the time for their end.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René & Ellington, John. A Handbook on Daniel. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1994. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .