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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 10:22

For the king had a fleet of ships of Tarshish …: Verse 22 begins in Hebrew with the conjunction rendered For since it states the reason why all of the gold was so available for King Solomon. If there is any danger of not knowing which king is intended, translators may say specifically “King Solomon” (New Century Version) or simply “Solomon” (Contemporary English Version).

References to Tarshish occur more than thirty times in the Old Testament. Sometimes the Hebrew noun here rendered Tarshish refers to a precious stone. In other texts, such as here in verse 22, it appears to refer to a geographical location, but the exact location is uncertain. On the basis of ancient writings, Tarshish has been identified with a colony in southwestern Spain, and also with Carthage in North Africa. Even if ships of Tarshish originally referred to ships that made the long trip to the city of Tarshish, the expression here has lost its original meaning and refers simply to ships able to sail long distances on the open sea. Some scholars suggest that the word Tarshish comes from an Akkadian root (rashashu), meaning “to heat,” “to melt,” or “to smelt.” If this suggestion is correct, the expression ships of Tarshish may not refer to a specific place but rather to ocean-going ships that transported raw materials to places where the ore was refined. Either of these interpretations may be the basis for the renderings “fleet of ocean-going ships” (Good News Translation; similarly Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), “fleet of trading ships” (New International Version, New Living Translation), and “merchant fleet” (em>Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente, Peregrino). New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh (also Anchor Bible) says “Tarshish fleet,” but then explains in a footnote that this probably means “fleet of large ships.” The same expression is used with this meaning in 1 Kgs 22.48; 2 Chr 9.21; and Psa 48.7, as well as several times in the prophet Isaiah.

The Hebrew noun rendered ivory is not the same as the one in verse 18, but it comes from the same root. Gray adds “ebony” to the text here as another product brought by the ships. On the basis of a reading in the Septuagint, he suggests that “ebony” was probably in the Masoretic Text but was accidentally omitted. Also in support of this correction of the Masoretic Text is the fact that the final consonants of the Hebrew word translated ivory here are the same as the initial consonants for the Hebrew word for “ebony.” Nevertheless, translators are encouraged to follow the Masoretic Text instead of hypothetical reconstructions of the Hebrew original.

Apes renders a Hebrew noun that occurs only here and in the parallel text in 2 Chr 9.21. This word probably refers to monkeys or baboons, which were known in Egypt, and not to apes, which are larger and do not have tails.

The Hebrew noun rendered peacocks occurs in the Old Testament only here and in the parallel passage in 2 Chr 9.21. According to Holladay and many modern interpreters, this noun more likely refers to “baboons” (Osty-Trinquet, New International Version, New Century Version, De Vries, Gray) or “monkeys” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New American Bible). Others have suggested that it means “poultry,” or more specifically, peacocks (so Revised Standard Version, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Nouvelle Bible Segond, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). Bible en français courant and Parole de Vie translate it less specifically as “exotic birds” and “magnificent birds” respectively. The precise identification of the referent for this word is so uncertain that translators may feel free to translate either meaning.

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 .