altar

Click here to view graphically

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “altar” in English is translated in a number of ways:

  • Obolo: ntook or “raised structure for keeping utensils (esp. sacrifice)” (source: Enene Enene)
  • Muna: medha kaefoampe’a or “offering table” (source: René van den Berg)
  • Luchazi: muytula or “the place where one sets the burden down”/”the place where the life is laid down” (source: E. Pearson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 160ff. )
  • Tzotzil: “where they place God’s gifts” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation, March 1965, p. 2ff.)
  • Tsafiki: “table for giving to God” (source: Bruce Moore in Notes on Translation 1/1992, p. 1ff.)
  • Noongar: karla-kooranyi or “sacred fire” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Uma: “offering-burning table” (source: Uma Back Translation)
  • Yakan: “place for sacrificing” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
  • Tagbanwa: “burning-place” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
  • Tibetan: mchod khri (མཆོད་​ཁྲི།) or “offering throne” (source: gSungrab website )
  • Bura-Pabir: “sacrifice mound” (source: Andy Warrren-Rothlin)
The Ignaciano translators decided to translate the difficult term in that language according to the focus of each New Testament passage in which the word appears (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight

Willis Ott (in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.) explains:

  • Matt. 5:23,24: “When you take your offering to God, and arriving, you remember…, do not offer your gift yet. First go to your brother…Then it is fitting to return and offer your offering to God.” (The focus is on improving relationships with people before attempting to improve a relationship with God, so the means of offering, the altar, is not focal.)
  • Matt. 23:18 (19,20): “You also teach erroneously: ‘If someone makes a promise, swearing by the offering-place/table, he is not guilty if he should break the promise. But if he swears by the gift that he put on the offering-place/table, he will be guilty if he breaks the promise.'”
  • Luke 1:11: “…to the right side of the table where they burn incense.”
  • Luke 11.51. “…the one they killed in front of the temple (or the temple enclosure).” (The focus is on location, with overtones on: “their crime was all the more heinous for killing him there”.)
  • Rom. 11:3: “Lord, they have killed all my fellow prophets that spoke for you. They do not want anyone to give offerings to you in worship.” (The focus is on the people’s rejection of religion, with God as the object of worship.)
  • 1Cor. 9:13 (10:18): “Remember that those that attend the temple have rights to eat the foods that people bring as offerings to God. They have rights to the meat that the people offer.” (The focus is on the right of priests to the offered food.)
  • Heb. 7:13: “This one of whom we are talking is from another clan. No one from that clan was ever a priest.” (The focus in on the legitimacy of this priest’s vocation.)
  • Jas. 2:21: “Remember our ancestor Abraham, when God tested him by asking him to give him his son by death. Abraham was to the point of stabbing/killing his son, thus proving his obedience.” (The focus is on the sacrifice as a demonstration of faith/obedience.)
  • Rev. 6:9 (8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7): “I saw the souls of them that…They were under the table that holds God’s fire/coals.” (This keeps the concepts of: furniture, receptacle for keeping fire, and location near God.)
  • Rev. 11:1: “Go to the temple, Measure the building and the inside enclosure (the outside is contrasted in v. 2). Measure the burning place for offered animals. Then count the people who are worshiping there.” (This altar is probably the brazen altar in a temple on earth, since people are worshiping there and since outside this area conquerors are allowed to subjugate for a certain time.)

See also altar (Acts 17:23).


In the Hebraic English translation of Everett Fox it is translated as slaughter-site and likewise in the German translation by Buber / Rosenzweig as Schlachtstatt.

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.

Translation commentary on Leviticus 1:15

The priest: the priest presides over the entire ritual; there is no apparent division of labor between the lay person and the priest, as in the case where a larger animal is offered. In this verse the priest seems to be the implied subject of all four verbs.

Wring off its head: the meaning of the Hebrew verb in this verse is uncertain. It is found only twice in the Old Testament (see 5.8). It is generally thought that it implies the idea of squeezing or pinching off the head with the fingernail. Apparently the Hebrew verb implies the idea of a complete break or separation in this verse, since the priest must burn the head on the altar. In some languages it may be more natural to say something like “twist off at the neck.” But in 5.8 it is explicitly stated that this gesture must be made “without pulling off its head.” The context of verse 15 puts more weight on the fact that the head is detached from the body than on the way in which it is actually done.

Burn it: this refers to the head (see Good News Translation) and not the entire bird. Compare verse 9.

Its blood shall be drained out: the verb used here is different from the one found in verses 5 and 11 regarding larger animals, and it should be translated differently here. The body of the bird was squeezed against the side of the altar, since there would not have been enough blood to perform the complete ritual described earlier. Moffatt translates “squeezed out.” Although HOTTP recommends the passive reading at this point, many languages will have to translate the meaning actively and make the priest the subject of the verb. New American Bible does so with “and [the priest shall] squeeze out its blood….”

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 11:4, Lev 11:5, Lev 11:6

Nevertheless: the transition word is important here. It marks a sharp contrast between what may be eaten (verse 3) and what must not be eaten (verses 4-6). An American Translation and New Jerusalem Bible have “However,” while New American Bible and Good News Translation have “but.” New International Version attempts to mark the contrast by beginning a new paragraph at this point, but a good translation of the transition word will probably be better in most languages.

You shall not eat: used with the negation, this verb form takes the character of a strong prohibition (compare verse 2), which is made clearer in Good News Translation, “you must not eat.”

The camel: the use of the singular to represent the entire class of animals is common in Hebrew but unnatural and unacceptable in many other languages. It will give the wrong impression if used in translation.

Since camels are unknown in many parts of the world, a borrowed word may have to be used and explained in a footnote or glossary. It is also advisable to use illustrations in order to help the reader. Technically, the word used here refers to a “dromedary,” which has only one hump on its back and is somewhat smaller than a camel. But in ordinary English the term “camel” is used for both the dromedary and the camel. If the receptor language distinguishes between the two, then the word for dromedary should be used.

The animal referred to in English as rock badger is a small grass-eating animal found in the Near East and North Africa. It is about the size of a rabbit and normally lives in groups in rocky terrain. Neither the badger nor the hare actually chew the cud as cows do, but by the way their jaws move they give the appearance of doing so, and for this reason they are excluded from the edible animals. On the other hand, some writers have suggested that the word usually translated hare is really some other animal that actually does “chew the cud.” But this not taken seriously by Old Testament scholars.

There were several species of hare or “rabbits” in Palestine. They are members of the rodent family and have ears that are longer than those of other rodents.

The three animals mentioned here do not constitute a complete list but merely serve as examples. For this reason, in some languages it may be advisable to add “for example” at the most natural place in verses 4-6.

Is unclean to you: this expression is found in verses 5 and 6 in Revised Standard Version but is rendered only once in Good News Translation. The passive construction of Good News Translation leaves implicit the words to you. But this may be translated as in New English Bible, “you shall regard it as unclean.”

Verses 4-6 contain a great deal of repetition which may be eliminated in languages where such style is considered heavy or awkward. Good News Translation provides a good model for reducing the repetition.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .