21Joram said, “Get ready.” And they got his chariot ready. Then King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of Judah set out, each in his chariot, and went to meet Jehu; they met him at the property of Naboth the Jezreelite.
The Hebrew, Latin and Greek that is translated into English as “chariot” is translated into Anuak as “canoe pulled by horse.” “Canoe” is the general term for “vehicle” (source: Loren Bliese). Similarly it is translated in Lokạạ as ukwaa wạ nyanyang ntuuli or “canoe that is driven by horses.” (Source: J.A. Naudé, C.L. Miller Naudé, J.O. Obono in Acta Theologica 43/2, 2023, p. 129ff. )
Other translations include:
Chichicapan Zapotec: “ox cart” (in Acts 8) (ox carts are common vehicles for travel) (source: Loren Bliese)
Chichimeca-Jonaz, it is translated as “little house with two feet pulled by two horses” (source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
HausaCommon Language Bible as keken-doki or “cart of donkey” (source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
The name that is transliterated as “Judah” or “Judea” in English (referring to the son of Jacob, the tribe, and the territory) is translated in Spanish Sign Language as “lion” (referring to Genesis 49:9 and Revelation 5:5). This sign for lion is reserved for regions and kingdoms. (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. and Steve Parkhurst)
In Malay, the pronoun beta for the royal “I” (or “my” or “me”) that is used by royals when speaking to people of lower rank, subordinates or commoners to refer to themselves in these verses. This reflects the “language of the court because the monarchy and sultanate in Malaysia are still alive and well. All oral and printed literature (including newspapers and magazines) preserve and glorify the language of the court. Considering that the language of the court is part of the Malaysian language, court language is used sparingly where appropriate, specifically with texts relating to palace life.” (Source: Daud Soesilo in The Bible Translator 2025, p. 263ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 9:21:
Kupsabiny: “Then, Joram said, ‘Prepare my chariot for me.’ It was prepared. After that, Joram who was the king of Israel got up together with Ahaziah who was the king of Israel, each man climbing his chariot and went to meet Jehu. The kings met with Jehu at the field of Naboth.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Joram said, "Get my chariot ready!" After they had gotten the chariot ready, Joram, King of Israel and Ahaziah, King of Judah, each sitting in his own chariot, and went to meet Jehu. They met in the field of Naboth, the Jezreelite.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Joram commanded, ‘[You (plur.)] prepare/get-ready my chariot.’ And when (it) was- now -prepared/ready, King Joram of Israel and King Ahazia of Juda set-out to meet Jehu. They rode on their own chariots. And they met Jehu in the land of Nabot who comes-from-Jezreel.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Joram said to his soldiers, ‘Get my chariot ready!’ So they did that. Then King Joram and King Ahaziah both rode toward Jehu, each one in his own chariot. And it happened that they met Jehu at the field that had previously belonged to Naboth!” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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:
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 (Dinė) 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.”
Make ready: The imperative verb used here in Hebrew literally means “tie” or “bind,” and no object is added to it. But the context makes it quite clear that what is intended is the binding or harnessing of horses to the king’s chariot. New Jerusalem Bible translates quite literally with “Harness!” But Revised English Bible makes the order sound more natural in English by providing the object, saying “Harness my chariot.”
They made ready his chariot: The Hebrew verb here is singular, but several ancient translations have the plural. Many English versions translate this by using a passive expression, such as “it was hitched up” (New International Version) or “that was done” (God’s Word). New Century Version reflects the singular with “the servant got Joram’s chariot ready.”
Joram … and Ahaziah … set out, each in his chariot, and went to meet Jehu: Both Joram, who had not completely recovered from his previous injury, and Ahaziah, his visitor from the southern kingdom of Judah, rode out in separate chariots to meet Jehu. The verbs set out and went render the same verb in Hebrew. In some languages it will be natural to translate these two verbs with one verb; for example, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “King Joram of Israel and King Ahaziah of Judah went out, each in his own chariot, to meet Jehu.”
The property of Naboth the Jezreelite: The story of Naboth’s vineyard is related in 1 Kgs 21. But here it is no longer called a “vineyard” since by this time it was probably used for other purposes. It is simply referred to as property (literally “portion,” that is, a plot of land). At this point in the story, it seems to be only an incidental detail about the location of the place where the two kings met Jehu. But in verses 25-26, it is seen as being much more significant. Translators should be careful not to give the impression that Naboth was still living and in possession of the property at this time. It is for this reason that some modern versions translate “the property that Naboth used to own” or “the plot of ground that had belonged to Naboth the Jezreelite” (New International Version).
Good News Translation omits the qualifying phrases king of Israel, king of Judah and the Jezreelite, which describe Joram, Ahaziah, and Naboth respectively. Naturalness in the receptor language should be the determining factor in deciding whether to include these phrases or to leave them implicit.
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Kings, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2008. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.