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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 13:11

I have given you kings in my anger is literally “I gave to you a king in my anger.” This line again refers to Israel’s request to Samuel for a king and God granting it (1 Sam 8.4-9). By giving Israel its first king, Saul, God in fact provided a whole series of kings. When Yahweh granted this request, he reminded Samuel that Israel had not rejected Samuel but had rejected Yahweh as their king. This is the background for the words anger and wrath in this verse.

And I have taken them away in my wrath is literally “and I took away in my wrath.” Revised Standard Version adds the pronoun them for clarity.

The Hebrew verbs rendered have given and have taken … away are imperfect, and they can be understood as referring to repeated action. Thus, even though kings is singular in the Hebrew text, this verse refers to the action of Yahweh that was repeated through all the history of Israel, especially the northern kingdom. The sense of this verse may be “I kept giving you a king in my anger, and in my wrath I kept taking him away.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh has “I give you kings in my ire, and take them away in My wrath.” Local languages may have their own way of expressing such repeated action.

The Hebrew verbs for have given and have taken … away mean simply “give” and “take,” and it is the words anger and wrath that provide the emotion that is intended. It is interesting that, against the background of Hosea’s unhappy marriage, these verbs are often used in Hebrew for the giving and taking of a wife.

The Hebrew nouns for anger (see comments on 8.5) and wrath are similar in meaning, but the latter one refers to more intense anger, one that cannot be contained. It may be rendered “fury” or “rage.”

A translation model for this verse is:

• In my anger I gave you kings,
and in my rage I took them away.

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 .