boat, ship

The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated “boat” or “ship” in English is translated in Chichimeca-Jonaz as “that with which we can walk on water” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.), in Chitonga as a term in combination with bwato or “dugout canoe” (source: Wendland 1987, p. 72), and in Tangale as inj am or “canoe-of water” (inj — “canoe” — on its own typically refers to a traditional type of carved-out log for sleeping) (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin).

In Kouya it is translated as ‘glʋ ‘kadʋ — “big canoe.”

Philip Saunders (p. 231) explains how the Kouya team arrived at that conclusion:

“Acts chapter 27 was a challenge! It describes Paul’s sea voyage to Italy, and finally Rome. There is a storm at sea and a shipwreck on Malta, and the chapter includes much detailed nautical vocabulary. How do you translate this for a landlocked people group, most of whom have never seen the ocean? All they know are small rivers and dugout canoes.

“We knew that we could later insert some illustrations during the final paging process which would help the Kouya readers to picture what was happening, but meanwhile we struggled to find or invent meaningful terms. The ‘ship’ was a ‘big canoe’ and the ‘passengers’ were ‘the people in the big canoe’; the ‘crew’ were the ‘workers in the big canoe’; the ‘pilot’ was the ‘driver of the big canoe’; the ‘big canoe stopping place’ was the ‘harbour’, and the ‘big canoe stopping metal’ was the ‘anchor’!”

In Lokạạ it is translated as ukalangkwaa, lit. “English canoe.” “The term was not coined for the Bible translation, but rather originated in colonial times when the English arrived in Nigeria on ships. The indigenous term for a canoe was modified to represent the large, ocean-going ship of the English.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )

See also ships of Tarshish, harbor, anchor, and sailor.

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 2 Chronicles 9:21

For the king’s ships went to Tarshish …: The Hebrew conjunction rendered For introduces 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 rendered Tarshish refers to a precious stone. In other texts, such as here in verse 21, 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 with the city of Carthage in northern Africa (see the comments on 1 Chr 1.7). Moffatt says “Tartessus,” which refers to the location in Spain. Some scholars suggest that the Hebrew noun tarshish comes from a root meaning “to heat,” “to melt,” or “to smelt.” If this suggestion is correct, the expression “ships of Tarshish” in the parallel text of 1 Kgs 10.22 may not refer to a specific place but rather to ocean-going ships that transported raw materials to places where the ore was refined. Such ocean-going ships usually sailed within sight of land. This understanding of the Hebrew noun is the basis for the following renderings here in 2 Chronicles: “ocean-going ships” (Good News Translation), “ships that he sent out to trade” (New Century Version), and “trading ships” (New Living Translation). But such translations harmonize the text with the parallel in 1 Kgs 10 even though the Hebrew here almost certainly refers to a place. Some scholars have suggested that the term originally referred to a type of ship and that the author of 2 Chronicles did not understand the meaning of this ancient technical term, taking it as a place rather than a kind of ship.

With the servants of Huram: See the comments on verse 10. This phrase may be rendered “led by the sailors of King Hiram” (Bible en français courant; similarly New Living Translation).

Once every three years: The round trip required a little over a year. Parts of two other years, plus the year of travel, would be counted as three years.

The Hebrew noun rendered ivory is not the same as the one in verse 17, but it comes from the same root (see the comments there).

Apes renders a Hebrew noun that occurs only here and in the parallel text of 1 Kgs 10.22. 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. But a surprising number of modern English versions still say “apes” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation, New Century Version). However, Contemporary English Version translates “monkeys” (also Biblia Dios Habla Hoy and most French versions). The translation of this term is closely tied to the understanding of the following one.

The Hebrew noun rendered peacocks (tukiyim) occurs in the Old Testament only here and in the parallel passage of 1 Kgs 10.22. According to Holladay and many modern interpreters, this noun more likely refers to “baboons” (New International Version, New Century Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Osty-Trinquet, alternative translation in New Revised Standard Version) or “monkeys” (Good News Translation, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, ACGS [see pages 18-19|fig:ACGS.2.3.2.Monkey.18-19.html]). Others have suggested that it means “poultry,” or more specifically “peacocks” (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Moffatt, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Biblia Dios Habla Hoy, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente). The precise identification of the tukiyim is so uncertain that translators may feel free to translate either meaning. If the preferred interpretation is “peacocks,” it may be rendered with a more general expression, such as “magnificent [or, beautiful] birds” (Parole de Vie). If the preferred interpretation is “baboons/monkeys,” then the two last two terms in this verse may be translated “baboons and monkeys.”

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .