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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Ecclesiastes 5:9

There are overwhelming problems in this verse, and one of the most difficult of them is determining the relationship between this verse and the previous one. The Revised Standard Version rendering inevitably leads us to ask “What if the land does not have cultivated fields?”

In its footnote the Revised Standard Version offers a more literal translation that is close to the Hebrew. We have to admit honestly that we do not know what this text means, so a footnote like that of Good News Translation or New American Bible is necessary. The text is so unclear it is obvious that there are many possible translations. Some examples follow:
Moffatt “After all, a country prospers with a king who has control.”
Knox “The king of the whole earth rules it as his dominion.”
Jerusalem Bible “You will hear talk of the service of the king.”
Good News Translation “Even a king depends on the harvest.”
New English Bible “The best thing for a country is a king whose own lands are well tilled.”
New American Bible “Yet an advantage for a country in every respect is a king for the arable land.”

But in all is an introductory phrase in Revised Standard Version, though the Hebrew can be an adverbial phrase describing the location of the advantage; for example, “[it is] with all” or “[shared] by all.” If the latter is correct, then Qoheleth is presenting an ideal that is in marked contrast with the situation described at the beginning of verse 8.

An advantage to a land is the opening phrase in the Hebrew text. It appears to be a form in which yithron, “benefit,” is bound to “land”: “the benefit of a land.” Questions about the function and meaning of the term yithron arise. In every other example Qoheleth links yithron with people, expressing his view that lasting benefit is available only to wise individuals. For this reason we may assume yithron here describes those lasting benefits that a land gives its people. A land is a geographical or political unit rather than land in the agricultural sense, so we can use the term “country” as some of the examples above have done. Revised Standard Version advantage to a land is probably incorrect.

A king: for translation see comments on 1.1.

To a land with cultivated fields: a rarely used participle gives a picture of a cultivated field. New American Bible “arable” means only that it can be used for agriculture, not that it has been prepared for crops. Fields describes open areas of land, but since it is here described as cultivated, we can use the term “farmland.”

The verse consists of two noun phrases in Hebrew. If there is a logical, or even parallel, relationship between them, we can suggest that the first phrase points to the benefits of a country being shared by all its people. With this in mind, we can go on to examine the second phrase. The preposition “to,” “for” attached to the Hebrew “field” probably indicates purpose: “for the purpose or benefit of.” This means that the king is to rule for the benefit of cultivated fields. If then there is a parallel relationship between the two phrases, the cultivated fields is a further description of the land in the first phrase. Thus cultivated fields may refer both to the land and also to those who live within its borders.

Thus we may translate:

• The benefits of a land are to be shared by all. A king exists for the benefit of the tilled land.

• What is gained from the land is for everybody. A king’s purpose is to protect the farmland.

The intended meaning may then be that, although oppression abounds (verse 8a) and administrators are the ones doing the oppressing (verse 8b), yet in fact the benefits of the land should be shared by all members of society. The king’s responsibility is to preserve this (verse 9), but unfortunately this ideal is rarely seen.

As has been pointed out already, the expressions used in this verse are difficult to understand and therefore our translation can only be tentative. A footnote will be required indicating that the Hebrew text is unclear.

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Zogbo, Lynell. A Handbook on the Book of Ecclesiates. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .