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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Esther 5:8   

The queen prefaces her second invitation by two conditions instead of one as for the first invitation in 5.4. The first condition is personal, the second is formal (see comment on “If it pleases the king” in 1.19). This use of two conditions parallels the king’s use of two questions in verse 6. The style of Esther’s language is formal, as when she was before him in audience in verse 4.

There in verse 4 she invited the king to a banquet that she had prepared “for him.” Now, in verse 8, she invites the king and Haman to the banquet that she will prepare for them. In Good News Translation the second occurrence of the pronoun “you” in this verse should be understood as being plural.

The Hebrew says “let the king and Haman come to the banquet that I will prepare for them,” but most translations add the word “tomorrow,” as does the Septuagint (see footnote in Revised Standard Version). Since Esther has already given one banquet, Good News Translation also adds the word “another”: “tomorrow at another banquet.” Revised English Bible says “come again tomorrow.” Since the Hebrew does say at the end of this verse that Esther will do “tomorrow” as the king has said, there is good reason to expect that the time of the second banquet is “tomorrow,” and this information may be inserted earlier in the verse, as Revised Standard Version has done.

This delay in telling the king her wish is not intended to mean that she considers herself to be the king’s equal, nor is it a sign of disrespect. It serves rather to heighten the drama, and the king is apparently not troubled by the delay. According to the following verse, Haman went away “happy” (Good News Translation).

I will do as the king has said: Esther’s assurance that she will do as the king wishes is restated by Good News Translation to make explicit what Esther is promising to do. This is no doubt the meaning, but Revised Standard Version reflects the formal similarity of the text of Esther’s promise with that of the king’s promise in verses 3 and 6 above.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Noss, Philip A. A Handbook on Esther (The Hebrew Text). (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1997. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .