The name that is transliterated as “Abiathar” in English is translated in Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) with a sign that combines “priest” and “last.” Abiathar was a priest during the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon. He was also the last priest in the lineage of Eli (1 Kings 2:27). (Source: Missão Kophós )
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 (Dinė)), ‘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.
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Samuel 8:17:
Kupsabiny: “The people who were the big burners of sacrifices (high priests) were Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar. The one who was in charge of the court was Seraiah.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were the priests. Seraiah was secretary.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The leading priests were Zadok the child of Ahitub and Ahimelec the child of Abiatar. The secretary was Seraya.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were the priests; Seraiah was the official secretary;” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The way the English versions are worded, there is a danger that on first reading one may think that Ahitub and Ahimelech were the mother and father of Zadok, and that Abiathar was his grandfather. The translation should make it clear that there were two priests: (1) Zadok, who was the son of Ahitub, and (2) Ahimelech, who was the son of Abiathar. In some languages this may mean restructuring as follows:
• There were two priests. One was the son of Ahitub and his name was Zadok. The other was the son of Abiathar and his name was Ahimelech.
Zadok later anointed Solomon as king (1 Kgs 1.32-40), and his influence continued for centuries (compare 1 Sam 2.35; 1 Kgs 4.2; 2 Chr 31.10).
Ahimelech the son of Abiathar: there is considerable confusion in the Old Testament texts as to which of these men was the father of the other one. In 1 Samuel (22.20; 23.6; and 30.7) Abiathar is presented as the son of Ahimelech, but here and in 1 Chronicles (18.16 and 24.6) Ahimelech is said to be the son of Abiathar. It is possible that the original order was “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, and Zadok” and that this text was deliberately rearranged in the form found in the Masoretic Text, which is followed by Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation; and Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament favors the reading of the Masoretic Text. Probably some scribe was surprised that Abiathar, descendant of Eli’s evil sons, was listed first, and that Zadok had no ancestors listed, while Abiathar had both a father and grandfather mentioned.
This supposition about the original form of the text has clearly influenced the translators of New Jerusalem Bible, which reads “Zadok and Abiathar the son of Ahimelech son of Ahitub were priests.” Revised English Bible is almost identical with New Jerusalem Bible, and Moffatt has essentially the same meaning, although the word order is different: “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech (the son of Ahitub) and Zadok were priests.” Both Anchor Bible and Contemporary English Version also propose “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.” This is in keeping with the second listing of David’s high officials in 20.25, which states clearly that the priests were “Zadok and Abiathar” (see also 1 Kgs 4.4, which names Zadok and Abiathar as priests under King Solomon). Since there is no manuscript support for these suggested corrections of the Masoretic Text, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament gives an {A} evaluation to the Masoretic Text and suggests that translators use a footnote to indicate what the original text may have been. This is, in fact, what Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch does. But it seems better to follow the correction as found in Moffatt and indicate in a footnote what the Masoretic Text says.
Secretary: although the precise meaning of this term is not settled, it is certain that the office involved more than that of a modern secretary in the usual sense of the English word. This person may have been responsible for the king’s official correspondence or may have served as an ambassador. The meaning is closer to that of the cabinet-level offices in the administration of the U.S. government that are called “Secretary of…” followed by a term indicating their specific responsibility. The verbal root on which this noun is based is “to count” or “to number.” Both New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Anchor Bible use the word “scribe,” but a scribe in the time of David held a very important position. He was a man of great learning and was highly respected. For this reason Anderson’s “royal scribe” is better. While Revised English Bible has “adjutant-general,” this modern terminology is unlikely to help translators in most areas of the world. Some languages may require an explanatory phrase like “the assistant to the king in charge of writing matters” or “the learned one who wrote down things for the king.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 2. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.