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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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).

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Judges 9:18

And you have risen up against my father’s house this day: Here somewhat surprisingly Jotham directly accuses the people of Shechem for this attack on his family. Abimelech and his hired men made the actual attack, but the people of Shechem were also responsible by supporting him. The Hebrew waw conjunction rendered and introduces a contrast here between what Gideon did and what the people of Shechem have done, so it is better translated “but” (New Revised Standard Version, Good News Translation). The Hebrew pronoun for you is emphatic and should be rendered as such, for example, “But, as for you, you…” or “But look at what you have done: you….” Have risen up renders the key Hebrew verb qum, which is often used to portray the action of judges “rising” to save Israel from its enemies (see comments on verse 2.10). Here ironically Israelites have risen up against other Israelites, once again a foreshadowing of the horrific civil war to come. Good News Translation says “turned against,” and Contemporary English Version has “attacked.” My father’s house refers primarily to Gideon’s seventy sons, but it also includes his extended family. This day should not be understood to mean that Jotham was speaking to the Shechemites on the very day that Abimelech killed his 70 brothers. The Hebrew word for day often refers to a more general time span, and here covers the recent past. Thus this day may be rendered “now” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh) to include both the recent past and the present.

And have slain his sons is literally “and you have killed his sons.” The pronoun “you” refers to the Shechemites again, especially Abimelech and his men. The accusation of Jotham is a powerful indictment against the entire town. If possible the pronoun should be retained. For slain see the comments on verse 8.17. We could also say “massacred,” “slaughtered,” or even “butchered” (Revised English Bible). His sons refers to Gideon’s male children. Jotham does not call them “my brothers.” He does this to keep the emphasis on Gideon, who deserves the respect of those he is addressing. We might say “You massacred his sons!”

Seventy men on one stone: See verse 9.5.

And have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the citizens of Shechem: This is Jotham’s final accusation against the people of Shechem: they made Abimelech their king. verse 8.31 reveals that Abimelech’s mother was Gideon’s “concubine” or wife of second rank, but here she is called his maidservant, that is, his “female servant” or “slave girl” (Contemporary English Version). This is a further insult to Abimelech, because a slave girl did not even have the status of a concubine. Around the world and still today, insulting someone’s mother is one of the strongest insults possible. Here calling Abimelech’s mother a maidservant insinuates he had no social status and certainly had no right to be the legal successor of Gideon, let alone king of the territory. For the citizens of Shechem, see verse 9.2. There this phrase seems to refer to “the leaders of Shechem,” but here it seems to have a wider meaning, referring to all the inhabitants of Shechem.

Because he is your kinsman is literally “because your brother he [is].” This clause begins with the Hebrew particle ki (because), which introduces the reason the people of Shechem made Abimelech king. They did not support him because they thought he would be a good leader, but rather because they thought they could profit from his being their relative. Here the Hebrew word for “brother” has the wider sense of a relative coming from the same town (see comments on verse 9.3). We might say “because he is related to you” or “because he is your relative” (New Living Translation). In some languages the clauses here can be reversed. For example, Good News Translation says “and just because Abimelech, his son by his servant woman, is your relative, you have made him king of Shechem.”

As noted above, Jotham interrupts his conditional statements in verse 9.16 with additional material in verse 9.17-18. If translators have begun 9.17 with a dash, then they can put a closing dash at the end of this verse.

A translation model for this verse is:

• But now you have turned against my father and his family and killed his seventy sons on a single stone, and you have made Abimelech, the son of his slave girl, king over all the people of Shechem. All this, because he is your relative!

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .