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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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

Translation commentary on 1 Kings 10:19 - 10:20

In the Hebrew text the writer refers to the six steps in verse 19 and then describes the back of the throne and the arm rests before coming back to say more about the six steps in verse 20. Good News Translation restructures these two verses by placing all of the information about the steps together at the beginning.

The throne had six steps: There may have been symbolic significance in the number of steps but that significance is uncertain; and, in any case, it should not be inserted into the translation of the text. While Revised Standard Version may be understood to mean that the steps were a part of the throne, Good News Translation correctly interprets this as meaning that the six steps “led up to” (Revised English Bible) the actual throne. Bible en français courant states the same idea in a different way as follows: “This throne was situated on a platform having six steps.”

At the back of the throne was a calf’s head: In Hebrew the same three consonants appear in the noun for calf (translated “bull” in Good News Translation) and the adjective for “round.” Only the vowels are different. The Masoretic Text says that the back of the throne was “round” (so New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation, La Bible Pléiade, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Bible en français courant, Parole de Vie, Nouvelle Bible Segond), but Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation both correct the vowels to read calf/“bull,” in agreement with the reading of the Septuagint (also Osty-Trinquet). Translators are advised to follow the Masoretic Text by translating the meaning found in New Revised Standard Version (“The top of the throne was rounded in the back”) or in Contemporary English Version (“The back of the throne was rounded at the top”). Archaeological evidence from the ancient Near East confirms that straight-backed chairs with rounded tops were common shapes for thrones.

Arm rests is literally “hands.” This has also been translated “arms” (New Jerusalem Bible). In some languages this part of a chair may be called “elbow places.” One African language has “arm-lying-stems.”

Two lions standing beside the arm rests: Lions were symbols of the tribe of Judah (see Gen 49.9). This clause means there was one figure (or, statue) of a lion on each side, not two on each side as a literal translation such as Revised Standard Version may incorrectly suggest. Archaeological discoveries indicate that some thrones from the ancient Near East had arms that were supported by carved animal figures. But the text here seems to state clearly that the lions were standing beside the arm rests and not supporting the armrests. The plural ending of the Hebrew noun for lions in verse 19 has a different spelling from the ending of the Hebrew plural noun for lions in verse 20. Some interpreters explain this by claiming that the two lions beside the armrests were female, while those on the steps were male lions. This is not certain, however, since both spellings may refer to male lions.

While twelve lions stood there, one on each end of a step on the six steps: It may be more natural to say “and there was a statue of a lion at both ends of each of the six steps leading up to the throne” (Contemporary English Version).

The like of it was never made in any kingdom: The throne of Solomon is compared with all other thrones in existence up to that time and the writer finds that there were none that were comparable to it. Moffatt translates “No such throne was ever made in any kingdom.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .