In American Sign Language it is translated with the sign for “government/governor” plus the sign for “P” with a circular movement. The reference to government indicates Pilate’s position of authority in the Roman Empire. (Source: RuthAnna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
The Greek that is translated as “King of the Jews” in most English translations is translated in Nyongar as Djelyib moortakang Judea-kang or “King of the people of Judea.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Following are a number of back-translations of Luke 23:3:
Nyongar: “Pilate asked him, ‘You are King of the people of Judea, are you?’ ‘So you say,’ Jesus replied.” (Source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
Uma: “So, Pilatus asked Yesus: ‘Are You really the King of the Yahudi people?’ Yesus said: ‘Really thus, like what you say.'” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “Pilatus asked him, he said, ‘Are you the king of the Yahudi?’ Isa answered, he said, ‘That is what you say.'” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And as for Pilate, he asked Jesus, he said, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ And Jesus answered, ‘Yes, it’s what you say.'” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “Then Pilato inquired of Jesus, ‘Are you (sing.) (surprised realization particle) the king of the Jews?’ ‘If that’s what you (sing.) say, that’s so,’ Jesus answered.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “When Pilato heard that, he questioned Jesus. He said, ‘What, are you the King of the Judio?’ Jesus replied, ‘Yes, what you said is true.'” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.
As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff.), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.
Here, Pilate is addressing Jesus with an informal pronoun and Jesus Pilate with the formal, respectful form.
Voinov explains: “Pilate, as governor of Judea, would consider himself superior to Jesus, a carpenter and itinerant teacher, on the power hierarchy. This is especially visible when Pilate reminds Jesus that he is the one who decides whether Jesus lives or dies. An informal pronoun is appropriate in Tuvan to render this attitude. The more difficult question concerns the form Jesus should use in responding to Pilate. On the one hand, it can be argued from passages such as John 18:33-37 and 19:11 that Jesus did not accept Pilate’s authority. There Jesus affirms himself as king and lets Pilate know that Pilate’s authority is subordinate to God. On the other hand, it seems likely that Jesus would show due respect to the authorities, not out of fear for his life, but rather because this constituted a part of the Jewish concept of righteousness. (…) One potential problem with this solution is that readers may think that Jesus is trying to curry the favor of these powerful people in order to save himself. Before making a final decision the Tuvan translators did comprehension testing concerning this point. None of the readers interpreted Jesus’ use of the informal pronoun in this way, but rather said that Jesus was showing respect appropriate to the position of his addressee.”
In Gbaya, where God is always addressed with the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́, the common way to address superiors, Pilate and Jesus address each other with the less courteous nɛ́. (Source Philip Noss)
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:
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.”