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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Joshua 12:9 - 12:24

In this list of thirty-one kings, the kings of the following cities have already been named: Jericho (6.1-27; see note on 8.2 and 10.1); Ai (8.10-29); Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (10.22-27); Gezer (10.33); and Debir (10.38).

Revised Standard Version reproduces the formal features of the Hebrew; from verses 9-23 the Hebrew lists two kings in each of the fifteen verses, giving the name of the king and then adding the numeral “one” after each name; in verse 24a the last king is named, followed also by the numeral “one.” This gives a total of thirty-one kings.

Good News Translation has simplified the form in an attempt to make the list easier to read.

If the form of Good News Translation is preferred over the tabular form of An American Translation, then verse numbers “9-24” may be indicated at verse 9, so as to avoid the awkwardness of having verse numbers precede so many of the names in the text.

In such a list as this the precise location of each city is not important, since there is no movement from one place to the next. The cities in verses 9-16a (Jericho to Makkedah) are in the south: the cities in verses 16b-24 are in the central and northern part of the country. Commentators point out that no campaigns in the central part of the country (in the territories of Ephraim and Manasseh) have been described.

There are several textual problems in this list.In verse 18 the Masoretic text lists two kings: of Aphek and of Lasharon. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project emends the text by deleting the first numeral “one” and taking lasharon to mean “of Sharon,” and translates “the king of Aphek-in-Sharon, one” (so Gray). Thus verses 18, following Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, lists only one king. Bible de Jérusalem translates “the king in Sharon” (not of Sharon). In verse 19 Hebrew Old Testament Text Project recommends deleting “king of Madon: one.” In verse 20, instead of two kings in the Masoretic text, of Shimron Meron and of Achshaph, Hebrew Old Testament Text Project conjectures three kings: of Shimeon, of Meron, and of Achshaph. There is some support from the Septuagint in some of these textual items; but it should be noted that the Septuagint lists only twenty-nine kings in all. Hebrew Old Testament Text Project comes up with thirty (and not thirty-one) kings in all. It does not seem necessary to follow Hebrew Old Testament Text Project here. In verse 23a the Hebrew for “Naphath-dor” (see Revised Standard Version) is taken by Good News Translation to mean (see 11.2) “the Dor on the coast” (New English Bible has “Dor in the district of Dor”; Jerusalem Bible “Dor on the hillsides of Dor”; Traduction œcuménique de la Bible “Dor on the crest of Dor”).

In verse 23b the Masoretic text has “Gilgal.” The Septuagint has “Galilee” (so An American Translation, Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation, Bible de Jérusalem, Jerusalem Bible), supported by Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, which judges that the reading “Gilgal” represents either a misunderstanding of the historical situation by a later scribe, or a scribal error. New American Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible prefer the Masoretic text. Goiim represents the transliteration of a Hebrew word which as a common noun means “nations, peoples, Gentiles”: so An American Translation, Bible de Jérusalem. New American Bible translates the Masoretic text by “the foreign king at Gilgal.” Gray suggests a scribal mistake for “Harosheth-of-the-Gentiles” (see Judges 4.2), which was in Galilee.

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Newman, Barclay M. A Handbook on Joshua. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .