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 (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.

See also idolatrous priests.

complete verse (Haggai 2:13)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Haggai 2:13:

  • Kupsabiny: “Then Haggai asked (them), ‘Or if a person has touched a corpse and then he touches food, will it make that food become unclean?’ The priests answered, ‘Yes.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Then Haggai asked, "If a person who has become unclean by touching a dead body touches this food, does it become unclean?"
    The priests answered, "Yes, it becomes unclean."” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Then Haggai asked, ‘Suppose these food were-touched by a person/man who is-considered unclean/dirty because he has-touched a dead-body, are these food will-become unclean/dirty too? The priests answered, ‘Yes.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Then Haggai asked them, ‘If someone becomes unacceptable to God by touching a corpse, and then he touches any of those foods, will the food also become unacceptable to God?’
    The priests replied, ‘Yes.’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Haggai 2:13

Then said Haggai: Next Haggai asks the opposite question, whether defilement can be transmitted indirectly. We are to assume that this question also was asked at the command of the LORD (compare verse 11), though the text does not say so. In this case, there is probably no need to fill in the ellipsis, and Good News Translation does not do so.

Unclean means ritually impure and temporarily unable to take part in the worship of God. Other ways to translate this term are “religiously impure or bad,” referring to ritual defilement, and even “forbidden for use in the worship God.” Some languages express this as something like “having bad taboo.” Translators may also wish to compare the translation used in such places as Mark 7.2-5, 14-23; Acts 10.14-15.

For uncleanness caused by contact with a dead body, see Num 19.13. In this case, the priests ruled that the uncleanness could be passed on. Their answer agrees with Num 19.22, and establishes the principle that defilement is transmitted more easily than holiness. This principle is the foundation for Haggai’s comments in verse 14. A dead body here refers to the corpse of a human being as noted in Num 19.13, although the prohibition could just as well apply to the carcasses of dead animals. If in certain languages there are different words for the corpse of a human and the corpse of an animal, the expression for the human corpse should be chosen.

Touches any of these: Of these refers to the foodstuffs mentioned in verse 12.

Does it become unclean? may be rendered “would they [the foods] become unclean?” (Contemporary English Version) or .”.. have bad taboo?”

The priests answered, “It does become unclean”: The reply of the priests is given in Hebrew with a full verb form (It does become unclean). Natural English requires a shorter form here, and modern versions offer several possibilities: “Yes” (Good News Translation, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, New Living Translation), “Yes, it does” (Jerusalem Bible), “It will” (New English Bible/Revised English Bible), “Of course they would” (Contemporary English Version). In some languages a short form of the answer will be appropriate, but in others the full verbal form will be necessary. Some modern English versions have an even fuller answer than the Hebrew; for example, “Yes, it becomes unclean” (New Revised Standard Version). This may be a suitable translation model for some languages.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Haggai. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .