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 (Judges 18:24)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Judges 18:24:

  • Kupsabiny: “Micah replied, ‘What are you now saying? What in the world am I to do? After all you have taken my idols from me. And you have also gone with my priest taking everything from me.’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Micah said — "You have taken away my gods that I made for myself. You have even taken away my priest. You have not even left me anything. How can you ask — ‘What happened to you?’"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Micas replied, ‘Are- you (plur.) really -asking? You (plur.) took-away my little-gods/false-gods that I had-made, as-well-as my priest. Nothing has-been-left with me.’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “Micah shouted, ‘You took the silver idols that were made for me! You also took my priest! I do not have anything left ! So why do you ask me, ‘What is the problem?’’” (Source: Translation for Translators)

formal 2nd person plural pronoun (Japanese)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the choice of a formal plural suffix to the second person pronoun (“you” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, anata-gata (あなたがた) is used, combining the second person pronoun anata and the plural suffix -gata to create a formal plural pronoun (“you” [plural] in English).

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Judges 18:24

The humorous scene continues, as Micah, obviously flustered and furious, responds to the Danites’ question with an accusation and questions of his own. Each question contains the Hebrew interrogative word mah (“what”). The audience hears Micah’s frustration and fury (mah … mah … mah), but can only laugh as Micah’s words reveal his own misguided behavior.

And he said: In this context the general verb said may be rendered “replied” (New Revised Standard Version). In some languages there are emphatic quote formulas that might be used in this dramatic confrontation, for example, “He said, said.”

You take my gods which I made, and the priest: The Hebrew is very emphatic here, literally “My gods that I made, you took, and the priest.” Putting my gods at the beginning of this clause shows that these objects of worship are Micah’s main concern and makes Micah look even more foolish. He virtually admits these idols are something he himself has fabricated. The verb take, which here means “steal,” once again links back to the initial incident when Micah himself stole from his own mother (verse 17.2). My gods which I made refers specifically to the ephod, the teraphim, and the idol that Micah had made (see verse 17.3, verse 5) and seems to especially cherish. The Hebrew word rendered gods (ʾelohim) often refers to the God of Israel, but here refers to “idols.” Micah also complains that the Danites have taken his priest, another way the narrator pokes fun at Micah who has made this Levite a priest (see verse 17.10). In Hebrew there is a definite article on priest, showing that both parties know about him, so translators might speak of “my priest” or “the priest who works for me.” For the whole clause we might say “My gods, the gods I made, you took them, along with my priest!”

And go away is literally “and you went [away].” The verb go away may be combined with take by saying “took away.” There is no mistaking the tone here. Micah is complaining bitterly about what the Danites have done, all the while revealing the unacceptability of his own choices in setting up his own shrine.

And what have I left?: After his strong accusation, Micah then asks several rhetorical questions to express his indignation. What have I left? is literally “what to me still?” Micah now bemoans the fact that he has nothing left. Of course, he has his home and all his family. This exaggerated speech adds to the humor here. Micah values the gods he has made above all he owns. Translators could turn this question into a dramatic accusation, for example, “You have taken everything I own!”

How then do you ask me, ‘What ails you?’: In this rhetorical question Micah turns the Danites’ question back to them. It is literally “and what [is] this you say to me, ‘What to you?’ ” Revised Standard Version‘s rendering is good, but another possible model is “How in the world can you ask me, ‘What’s wrong?’ ” What ails you? is a quote within a quote (see verse 18.23), and translators will have to decide if they want to keep this form in their translation. If so, they should carefully use formatting and punctuation as established for their language. Translators should also do their best to express the humor here. This rhetorical question may be expressed as a strong statement, for example, “How dare you! You know exactly what is wrong!” or “You know very well why I’m so angry!”

Contemporary English Version reverses the order of the clauses in Micah’s response, saying, “You know what’s wrong. You stole the gods I made and you took my priest. I don’t have anything left.” This may serve as a possible model.

Translation models for this whole verse are:

• And Micah blurted out, saying, “You took the gods I made, along with my priest, and you go away, and now you dare to ask me, ‘What’s wrong?’ What’s wrong? [or, I’ll tell you what’s wrong!] I have nothing left!”

• Then Micah said, “You ask me, ‘What’s the matter?’ You stole the gods I had made and the priest who worked for me! You have taken everything I own!”

Quoted with permission from Zogbo, Lynell and Ogden, Graham S. A Handbook on Judges. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .