complete verse (Isaiah 37:13)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Isaiah 37:13:

  • Kupsabiny: “Where is now the king of Hamath, of Arpad, of Sepharvaim, of Hena and of Ivvah?” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Then where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, or the king of Lair or Sepharvaim, or the kings of Hena or Ivvah?” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Have- the kings of Hamat, Arpad, Sefarvaim, Hena, and Iva -done-something?” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “What happened to the King of Hamath and the King of Arpad? What happened to the kings of Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah cities? Did their gods rescue them ?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

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 Isaiah 37:13

Where is the king of Hamath, the king of Arpad, the king of the city of Sepharvaim, the king of Hena, or the king of Ivvah?: This rhetorical question follows closely the wording of 36.19, but the kings of these various cities are in focus here, rather than their gods. By asking where these kings are, Sennacherib is implying that they are nowhere to be found—they have been killed.

For the cities of Hamath and Arpad, see the comments on 10.9; for the city of Sepharvaim, see 36.19. The location of the city of Hena is unknown, but since it is in this list with Hamath and Arpad, it probably was located near them in northern Syria. The city of Ivvah was also in Syria. If it is the same city as Avva, mentioned in 2 Kgs 17.24, then its citizens were moved to Samaria after it was defeated by the Assyrians in 721 B.C.

One word in the Hebrew text of this verse is problematic. The whole verse is literally “Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king for the city [laʿir in Hebrew] of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and of Ivvah?” Some commentators understand the Hebrew word laʿir to be the name of another city, rather than meaning “for the city.” New Jerusalem Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and Bible en français courant interpret it this way by referring to the city of “Lair” (similarly Revised English Bible with “Lahir”). There was a city called Lair (or Lahir) in northeastern Babylonia. Both interpretations are found in major modern translations, so translators may choose either one. They may provide the alternative reading in a footnote.

For the translation of this verse consider the following examples:

• Gone are the kings of the cities of Hamath, Arpad, Sepharvaim, Hena and Ivvah.’”

• What has happened to the kings of the cities of Hamath, Arpad, Lair, Sepharvaim, Hena, and Ivvah?’”

Quoted with permission from Ogden, Graham S. and Sterk, Jan. A Handbook on Isaiah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .