priest

Click here to view graphically

The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that are typically translated as “priest” in English (itself deriving from Latin “presbyter” — “elder”) is often translated with a consideration of existing religious traditions. (Click or tap for details)

Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this:

“However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher;’ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Eastern Maninkakan), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle, and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Hausa); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal).”

In Obolo it is translated as ogwu ngwugwa or “the one who offers sacrifice” (source: Enene Enene), in Mairasi as agam aevar nevwerai: “religious leader” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Ignaciano as “blesser, one who does ritual as a practice” (using a generic term rather than the otherwise common Spanish loan word sacerdote) (source: Willis Ott in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.), and in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).

For Guhu-Samane, Ernest Richert (in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. ) reports this:

“The [local] cult of Poro used to be an all-encompassing religious system that essentially governed all areas of life. (…) For ‘priest’ the term ‘poro father’ would at first seem to be a natural choice. However, several priests of the old cult are still living. Although they no longer function primarily as priests of the old system they still have a substantial influence on the community, and there would be more than a chance that the unqualified term would (in some contexts particularly) be equated with the priest of the poro cult. We learned, then, that the poro fathers would sometimes be called ‘knife men’ in relation to their sacrificial work. The panel was pleased to apply this term to the Jewish priest, and the Christian community has adopted it fully. [Mark 1:44, for instance, now] reads: ‘You must definitely not tell any man of this. But you go show your body to the knife man and do what Moses said about a sacrifice concerning your being healed, and the cause (base of this) will be apparent.'”

For a revision of the 1968 version of the Bible in Khmer Joseph Hong (in: The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. ) talks about a change in wording for this term:

​​Bau cha r (បូជា‌ចារ្យ) — The use of this new construction meaning “priest” is maintained to translate the Greek word hiereus. The term “mean sang (មាន សង្ឃ)” used in the old version actually means a “Buddhist monk,” and is felt to be theologically misleading. The Khmer considers the Buddhist monk as a “paddy field of merits,” a reserve of merits to be shared with other people. So a Khmer reader would find unthinkable that the mean sang in the Bible killed animals, the gravest sin for a Buddhist; and what a scandal it would be to say that a mean sang was married, had children, and drank wine.

complete verse (Hebrews 7:11)

Following are a number of back-translations of Hebrews 7:11:

  • Uma: “When God gave his Law to the Yahudi people, he appointed [lit., lifted] the descendants of Lewi he made them priests who are in-charge-of the people to follow his Law. But the work of those priests does not make-holy mankind in God’s sight. That is why another priest must appear. That priest who appears is a priest like Melkisedek, not of the descendants of Lewi like Harun.” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “The laws of God which he gave to the tribe of Isra’il in old times, he gave at the time when the descendants of Libi were the priests. But the work of the priests, the descendants of Libi, was not complete because they were not able to bring the people to God. Therefore God sent a different priest here, and his priesting/priesthood is different from the priesthood of Harun, the descendant of Libi. His priesthood is like that of Malkisadik.” (Source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “And we know that at the time when God gave the Law to the Jews, He appointed priests who were the descendants of Levi to be the ones to be in charge of the Law. And if it were possible for mankind to be made righteous by means of their works it would not be necessary that there was another priest like Melchizedek; however, there is another kind of priest that God has chosen, and this one is not like Aaron, the descendant of Levi, but he is like Melchizedek.” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Kankanaey: “God’s giving of his law to the Jews was based on his appointment of Levi’s descendants as priests to be in-charge-of the offerings the law commanded. But the work of those priests, it was not sufficient to make-people -righteous, so there needed to be another priest to replace (them) like the priesthood of Melkizedek, not the priesthood of Aaron who was a descendant of Levi.” (Source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “When God gave his laws to the Israelita, Aaron and other descendants of Levi were the ones he appointed to lead the people in doing that-with-which-to-ask-for forgiveness for sin. But, in/by that priesthood of theirs, this could not remove the sin of the people. For supposing the sin of the people really could be removed by the priesthood of Aaron and company it would not of course be necessary to set up another priest whose priesthood would be like that of Melquisedec, which was different from the priesthood of Aaron.” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tenango Otomi: “These priests now exhort the Jews to follow the law Moses wrote. They continue just like the priest Aaron did. But this law which they tell the Jews to follow does not have strength so that the people can be cleared by God. Because it was necessary that there be a different, new priest, one who does not follow just what the priest Aaron did. Rather he would take up the work at which the priest Melchizedek worked.” (Source: Tenango Otomi Back Translation)

Translation commentary on Hebrews 7:11

On the basis of: the translator’s task here, as in verse 5, is to translate what the writer of Hebrews believed to have happened, not to decide what actually did happen in Old Testament times. The text may simply mean that the Law was given “in connection with” the levitical priesthood. In fact, the Law and the priesthood were, as Translator’s New Testament puts it, “closely linked” (so Bijbel in Gewone Taal), and verse 12 shows that this was also the writer’s view. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch translates “On the priesthood of Levi’s descendants, the Israelite people were given clear instructions in the Law.” However, most translators and commentators agree with Good News Translation in the stronger statement that the priesthood was the basis of the Law.

Of Israel is implicit.

The adjectival form levitical is as unusual a word in Greek as in English; Biblia Dios Habla Hoy has “the levite priest,” which can be understood in the light of verse 5a.

The word for priesthood is related to the word used in verse 5. The two terms are not sharply distinguished, but the word used in verse 5 usually means the priest’s ministry or function, while the word used in verses 11-12 means the priestly order as an institution.

It may be difficult to use the abstract or generic vocabulary of the first part of verse 11. The first sentence may be rendered as “The priests who descended from Levi were a necessary part of the Law that was given to the people of Israel,” “… the Law that God gave to the people of Israel,” or “… the laws which God commanded the people of Israel to follow (or, obey).” In a number of languages one cannot use a singular form, since the so-called Law of Moses consists of a large number of regulations and rules, and in other languages this frequently requires a plural form.

Now marks a change in the argument, or at least the introduction of a new idea. The Greek term is rather emphatic (Moffatt translates “Further”; New American Bible, Translator’s New Testament “then”). A comparison with Revised Standard Version shows that Good News Translation puts the first part of the Greek sentence second. The effect is to emphasize it. This is helpful for the modern reader, who needs to be given this information, not like the first readers, who merely needed to be reminded of it.

The Greek word for perfect is related to the word for “maturity” (Revised Standard Version) used in 6.1 (Good News Translation mature teaching). It will soon become clear that the writer is concerned, not only with more advanced teaching, but with growth into a new and fully Christian life. For the moment, however, the contrast is between fulfillment in Christ and nonfulfillment in the law and priesthood of the Old Testament. The contrast is not between elementary and fully Christian faith or life. The old does not only develop into the new; the new replaces the old. The Greek word which Revised Standard Version translates “perfection” suggests the fulfillment of a purpose. This is either the purpose for which the priesthood was set up, or more generally God’s purpose for mankind. Barclay translates “If that priesthood had been perfectly able to do what it was designed to do”; Translator’s New Testament has “If then the Levitical priesthood … had fulfilled its purpose.” The condition has not been fulfilled.

It may also be possible to translate if the work of the levitical priests had been perfect as “if the priests descended from Levi had done just what they should have done,” “… had served God as they really should have served him,” or “… had done their work in a completely right way.”

Good News Translation and most other common language translations change the rhetorical question “what further need would there have been…?” (Revised Standard Version) into a statement. See the comment on 1.5.

There would have been no need for may also be expressed as “it would not have been necessary to have had.” Sometimes the expression of necessity may be combined with the following phrase, a different kind of priest to appear; for example, “a different kind of priest would not have needed to appear” or “a different kind of priest would not have been necessary.”

Kind of is implied, but Revised Standard Version‘s “another priest” does not bring out the full meaning, since the word translated “another” implies “different.”

One who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek is the same in Greek as in 5.10; see the comments there. The most likely meaning is “just like Melchizedek.” For the translator there are two essential points in the comparison between Melchizedek and Jesus: (a) Each is unique; so words for order suggesting a group of people, like “Order of the Legion of Honor,” are to be avoided. (b) Neither Melchizedek nor Jesus is just an isolated individual. They are linked in setting up a whole new system of priesthood and sacrifice. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch has “of Melchizedek’s kind”; Moffatt uses “with the rank of Melchizedek.” In this context the phrase in the priestly order refers, as elsewhere, to “a kind of priest.” Therefore one who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek may be rendered as “one who is a priest like Melchizedek.”

Good News Translation omits Revised Standard Version‘s “named” which is simply a way of reminding the reader that the words in the priestly order of Melchizedek are a quotation. common language translations have a glossary note explaining who Aaron was and why he was significant.

The final phrase not of Aaron must be expanded in some instances as “he was not like a priest who descended from Aaron.”

Quoted with permission from Ellingworth, Paul and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on The Letter of the Hebrews. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1983. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .