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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Hosea 11:5

They shall return to the land of Israel, and Assyria shall be their king: In Hebrew this verse begins with a word meaning “not” (King James Version). But the Septuagint, followed by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation, moves this word to the end of the previous verse and changes it to read “them.” One problem some scholars have with the word “not” here is that this line then means the Israelites will not return to Egypt. However, their return to Egypt is clearly seen in 8.13; 9.3, 6; 11.11. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament recommends the Hebrew text here, since Israel had been called out of bondage in Egypt (11.1), and for this moment of speaking, Israel was not to return to Egypt but would instead have Assyria ruling over them. Although some individual Israelites may have escaped to Egypt, the Assyrians did conquer Israel and led them captive to Assyria, from which they never returned as a nation. It is possible to understand the return to Egypt elsewhere in Hosea as a symbolic return to the kind of bondage their ancestors had experienced in that country. An alternative interpretation in this context is that it is useless to call on Egypt for support. They will be subjected to the rule of Assyria anyway. Therefore a possible literal translation of these two lines in Hebrew is “He shall not return to the land of Egypt, but Assyria, he [will be] his king.” New International Version follows the Hebrew text by rendering this whole verse as a rhetorical question: “Will they not return to Egypt and will not Assyria rule over them…?” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is similar with “No! They return to the land of Egypt, And Assyria is their king….” These two renderings are also acceptable.

In this verse King James Version follows the Hebrew in using both singular pronouns and a plural pronoun to refer to Israel: “He shall not return into the land of Egypt, but the Assyrian shall be his king, because they refused to return.” For naturalness in English Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation use plural pronouns to refer to Israel throughout this verse. The decision to use singular or plural pronouns also depends on what was used for Israel in the previous verses.

Assyria shall be their king may be difficult to express in some languages, because it is a person, not a country, who can rule as king. It may be necessary to say “Assyria will rule over them” ( NET Bible) or “an Assyrian will be their king.”

Because they have refused to return to me is literally “because they have refused to return [or, repent].” The Hebrew for “repent” and “return” is the same word, so there is some irony here and a play on words. Yes, the Israelites will not return to Egypt, but instead Assyria will rule them because of the very fact that they will not return to God, that is, repent. Good News Translation puts this reason for the punishment at the beginning of the verse (“They refuse to return to me”), so that the punishments in verses 5 and 6 are brought together. Doing this is not necessary, but it may make for good style in the receptor language.

The same Hebrew verb is used for the Israelites’ physical return to Egypt and their failure to return spiritually to God. This verb forms an inclusio for the verse. It may be important in some languages to translate the second use of the verb as “repent” when it refers to their refusal to return to their God. But if possible, it is better to keep the idea of “returning” in both statements in order to reflect the inclusio.

Translation models for this verse are:

• They will return to Egypt,
Assyria will be over them,
because they refuse to return to me.

• They will not return to the land of Egypt,
but Assyria will rule them,
for they don’t want to return to me.

Quoted with permission from Dorn, Louis & van Steenbergen, Gerrit. A Handbook on Hosea. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2020. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .