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 If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior.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 Judges 11:25

This is a highly marked verse, since it contains several rhetorical questions, as well as three sets of repeated verbs. The answer to all the rhetorical questions is “No!” so these questions may also be rendered as strong negative statements.

Now are you any better than Balak the son of Zippor, king of Moab?: This rhetorical question clearly has a mocking tone. Now is literally “And now” (compare verse 11.13). Here this expression shows that the conversation is taking a new turn. Jephthah is once again building a new argument against the Ammonites. The Hebrew pronoun for you is emphatic. It refers to the Ammonite king. Are you any better renders an emphatic and repetitive expression in Hebrew, literally “are you good being good?” We could say “Now do you think you are better than…?” or “Now do you consider yourself better than…?” Balak the son of Zippor was the king of Moab around the time of Moses. When this king felt he could not defeat Israel, he summoned Balaam, hoping this prophet would put a curse on the Israelites so he could defeat them. But this ploy did not work (see Num 22–24). It is difficult to know in which way the Ammonite king might be better than Balak. This question might mean “Do you think you have a better claim on the land than Balak?” However, in this context it is more likely that Jephthah’s point is: “Balak, king of Moab, could not defeat us. Do you think you are more powerful than him?” But since there is no way to know exactly what is meant, translators can simply render the text as it stands, without additional explanations.

Did he ever strive against Israel…? is literally “Did he strive striving against Israel…?” The Hebrew verb here is repeated for emphasis, as in the previous question. For the verb strive, see verse 6.31, where it is translated “contend.” Some versions render strive against as “challenge” (Good News Translation) or “quarrel with” (Contemporary English Version, New International Version). In fact, Balak never did challenge or attack the Israelites because he was afraid of them. Jephthah is trying to reason with the Ammonite king by showing him that Balak, a great king of the past, did not challenge or fight against the Israelites. So, then why should the Ammonite king? Good News Translation renders this rhetorical question as “He never challenged Israel, did he?” It may also be translated as a statement as in Contemporary English Version: “he didn’t quarrel with Israel.”

Or did he ever go to war with them? is literally “or waging war, did he wage war against them?” Once again the verb is repeated for emphasis, which Revised Standard Version expresses well with ever go to war. For the Hebrew verb rendered go to war (lacham), see verse 1.1, where it is translated “fight.” The pronoun them refers to the Israelites. This rhetorical question indicates that Balak never fought against the Israelites either. It may be combined with the previous one by saying “Did he ever threaten the Israelites or go to war against them?”

Translation models for this verse are:

• Now look, you certainly aren’t any stronger than Balak, son of Zippor, the Moabite king! He wasn’t able to challenge or attack Israel! Can you?

• Do you really think you’re any better than Zippor’s son Balak, the Moabite king? Did he even dare to challenge the Israelites? Did he even dare to wage war against them?

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .