priest

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 13:55

Examine: this is actually a reexamination, since it was already examined in verses 50 and 51 (compare verse 34). In some languages the beginning of the verse may be restructured to say “As soon as it has been washed, he must look at it again. If the mildew has not changed….”

Has not changed in color: it will be clearer in some languages to say “If it is still greenish or reddish” (verse 49).

You shall burn it in the fire: as in verse 52, in the fire may be omitted as redundant. But the construction of the other part is not the same. The pronoun you (singular) is used in this verse in place of “he” of verse 52. This pronoun may refer to the priest or to the owner of the object that is to be burned. Jerusalem Bible takes it to mean the same as verse 52 and translates with the passive “It must be destroyed by fire.” But New Jerusalem Bible reverts to the more literal “you will burn it.” But it is possible to say “the priest will cause it to be burned” (see verse 52). While most versions retain the second person pronoun, the referent is unclear in Good News Translation and Revised Standard Version alike. In verse 57, Good News Translation translates the same expression as referring to the owner of the object. This should also be done in this verse if using a passive (as in New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible) is not possible in the receptor language.

Leprous spot: the word translated “leprosy” elsewhere is not used here. This word in Hebrew literally means “a boring or eating out.” The translation “rot” is good (Good News Translation, New English Bible). Translators may also consider Moffatt‘s “it has eaten into the stuff.”

On the back or on the front: the Hebrew uses the same two words that are used to describe the two types of baldness in verse 42. But here the context is very different. New English Bible translates “on the right side or the wrong”; New Jerusalem Bible “on its inner side or on its outer side”; New International Version “one side or the other”; New Jerusalem Bible “through and through.” In the context of clothing it seems to make more sense to speak of “inside and outside.”

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 .