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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Ezra 4:7

The shift to another example of opposition to the rebuilding Jerusalem is marked here by the Hebrew connective conjunction (And) and the time marker in the days of. Examples are given from another time. Two letters written to King Artaxerxes I, who ruled from 465 to 424 B.C., are introduced in this verse and the following ones.

Bishlam and Mithredath and Tabeel and the rest of their associates wrote: The authors of the first letter referred to here are listed, but nothing more is known about them. It is assumed that they wrote an accusation against the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem. Since the word Bishlam can also mean “in agreement with,” some ancient versions have translated “Tabeel and all his colleagues, with the agreement of Mithredath, wrote” (followed by New English Bible/Revised English Bible). But 1 Esdras (2.16) and the Vulgate understand it as a name, and this is also considered more likely by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, so translators are advised to follow Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation on this point.

The rest of their associates are not identified. They are “companions” or “colleagues” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant).

The letter was written in Aramaic, the official language of the Persian Empire. It is not clear into what language it was being translated. Several interpretations are possible. It has been suggested that it was translated from Aramaic into Hebrew, or from Aramaic into Persian (see the footnotes in Bible en français courant and Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), or that it was to be translated orally when read (Good News Translation). It is also not clear whether Aramaic refers only to the language or also to the script. Bible en français courant translates “The letter was written in Aramaic script and in the Aramaic language” (also New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). This connects the last word in the Hebrew text, meaning “in Aramaic,” to this sentence (as in MT) rather than to what follows and leaves untranslated the word for translated. This Handbook recommends that translators follow Revised Standard Version or Good News Translation here.

The passive verb was written may need to be restructured in some languages, for example, “they wrote the letter in the Aramaic language” or “they used the language of the Arameans to write the letter.”

The significance of the last word in the Hebrew text of this verse is not clear. It is a repetition of “in Aramaic,” which apparently stands alone, apart from the preceding sentence. It may be an explicit editorial indication that the following passage from 4.8 to 6.18 is in the Aramaic language (see Dan 2.4 for another example of text in Aramaic). Most translations omit it or make reference to it in a footnote as both Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation do. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous both include it. They write “Aramaic” as a single word to introduce the text that follows in verse 8, and they give an explanation in a footnote. Nouvelle Bible Segond identifies the different language of the original text by presenting the entire Aramaic portion in italics (also Ezra 7.12-26). Translators should indicate in a footnote that Aramaic is used in the original text here, but it is difficult to explain why Aramaic is used here (see “Sources” in “Translating Ezra and Nehemiah,” page 3).

Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .