Language-specific Insights

priest

The Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, 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.

In Cherokee (Jewish) priests are translated as atsilv-anelohi (ᎠᏥᎸ-ᎠᏁᎶᎯ), “fire feeders.” Bender / Belt (2025, p. 26) explain: “[This] provides a point of semantic overlap between the Jewish priests mentioned in the book of John and traditional Cherokee leaders who would have maintained a ceremonial fire. No loanword or semantic extension would have highlighted this specific similarity. Just as the New Testament Christ seeks to supersede the priests of his day, the missionaries working to translate the New Testament hoped to replace traditional ceremonialism with Christian beliefs and practices. Describing the Jewish priests as ‘fire feeders’ may have been a way to emphasize the obsolescence of fire-based ceremonialism. Strikingly, this word has become the term for Catholics. The vast majority of Cherokee converts to Christianity are Protestants.”

In Cuban Sign Language (the Jewish) priest is translated referencing the ephod , the traditional apron that was worn by priests:


“Priest” in Cuban Sign Language (source: La Biblia Para Personas Sorde )

Alain Montano (in: The Bible Translator 2026, p. 173ff.) explains: “A second challenge arose in translating the term ‘priest’ in Luke 10:31, referring to the priest who was descending from the temple. The translation team consisted primarily of Evangelical translators and included one Catholic translator. The initial sign proposed for ‘priest’ referenced the clerical collar, a symbol commonly associated with clergy across multiple Christian denominations, such as Methodists, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Reformed, Catholics, Moravians, and others. While most team members considered this option acceptable, the Catholic translator raised concerns that this representation could generate confusion, as it encompassed denominational identities not directly related to the priest described in the biblical text.

“Given this observation, the team began searching for a sign that accurately represented the priest in question and his role, with the aim of ensuring that the translation and interpretation of the text was as faithful as possible. Signs referencing a bishop’s miter or the skullcap worn by cardinals and popes were discarded, as the priest in question did not belong to the Catholic tradition as the evangelical translators initially understood it.

“The possibility of representing the high priest—using the breastplate and the Urim and Thummim — was also rejected, since the character in the text was not the high priest, but a Levitical priest serving his assigned turn in the temple. The challenge was ultimately resolved through the creation of a new sign referencing the ephod, which more accurately represented this type of priest, who served as an assistant in the work of the temple of Israel.”

See also idolatrous priests and Aaron.

large lyre / harp

The musical instrument that is most often translated as “harp” or “large lyre” in English is translated in the following ways:

  • Chichewa Contempary Chichewa translation, 2002/2016: “two stringed instrument” (source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “instruments which have strings to praise you,” “beautiful to-be-listened-to instruments,” or kudyapi (source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • Newari: sarəngi (source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Adilabad Gondi: karnaat (source: Adilabad Gondi Back-Translation)
  • Nyakyusa-Ngonde: zeze (source: Nyakyusa-Ngonde back translation)
  • Mairasi: kecapi (“like a ukulele”) (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Natügu: “ukulele” (source: Brenda Boerger in Open Theology 2016, p. 179ff. )
  • Cherokee: “musical instrument made of suspended wires” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16)

In the UBS Helps for TranslatorsHuman-made Things in the Bible (original title: The Works of Their Hands: Man-made Things in the Bible) it says the following:

Description: The exact identification of the nevel is very problematic. Some take it to be a kind of harp. The harp consisted of a neck projecting out of a soundbox. Strings were stretched from the extremity of the neck down its length and into the sound box. The body of the harp was made of wood and its strings of animal intestines (perhaps from sheep). The number of strings varied.

Others place the nevel in the category of lyres, where the strings are stretched over top of and parallel to the soundbox. While this is the interpretation preferred here, we will discuss the harp-type of instrument, since the identification is problematic and many translations have preferred “harp” for nevel.

Usage: The strings were plucked either with the fingers or with a thin piece of ivory or metal to give a resonating sound, probably in a lower register than that made by the kinor.

Translation: In several Psalms (33.2; 92.3; 144.9), the nevel is linked to the Hebrew word ‘asor, which could indicate it was “ten-stringed.”

Some degree of cultural adaptation must be made in the translation of these stringed instruments since cultures differ from each other in the shape, the number of strings, and the function of their instruments. Translators will have to select an equivalent instrument in the receptor language. In most passages the most accurate translation for nevel will be “guitar” or some equivalent medium-sized stringed instrument on which the strings are stretched over a sound box and are plucked.

In those passages where nevel and kinor appear together it is recommended that the translator use an instrument that can vary in size and then render the two words as “large and small X,” for example, “large and small guitars.” Alternately, it may be possible to select two stringed instruments that are similar in construction but different in size, for example, “guitar and lute.” It is also possible to say “large and small stringed instruments” or to combine the two, saying “stringed instruments.”

Psalms 33:2: “Praise the LORD with the lyre” (New Revised Standard Version, updated edition) contains two major translation problems. The first problem is that in many languages, the phrase “with the lyre” must be changed into a verb phrase or clause; for example, the whole line may be rendered “Praise the LORD by playing music on the lyre” or “Make music with the lyre, and praise the LORD.” The second problem, which applies also to the second line of this verse, is the terms to be used for the musical instruments here. In languages in which there are several stringed instruments, translators may use one of the smaller ones for kinor (“lyre”) and a larger one for nevel (“harp” in New Revised Standard Version, updated edition). In languages where there is little or no choice, they should use the known local stringed instrument for the kinor, and a more generic expression for the nevel. Where there are no known stringed instruments, it will often be necessary to say “small instruments with strings” for kinor and “large instruments with strings” for nevel.

Harp (source: Knowles, revised by Bass (c) British and Foreign Bible Society 1994)

Quoted with permission.

mourn

The Hebrew, Latin, and Greek that is translated as “mourn” or similar in English is translated in Newari as “have one’s heart broken” or “have a bursting heart” (source: Newari Back Translation).

In Cherokee it is translated as “going around feeling badly” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 16).

circumcise, circumcision

The Hebrew and Greek terms that are translated as “circumcise” or “circumcision” in English (originally meaning of English term: “to cut around”) are (back-) translated in various ways:

  • Chimborazo Highland Quichua: “cut the flesh”
  • San Miguel El Grande Mixtec, Navajo (Dinė): “cut around”
  • Javanese: “clip-away”
  • Uab Meto: “pinch and cut” (usually shortened to “cut”)
  • North Alaskan Inupiatun, Western Highland Purepecha: “put the mark”
  • Tetelcingo Nahuatl: “put the mark in the body showing that they belong to God” (or: “that they have a covenant with God”)
  • Indonesian: disunat — “undergo sunat” (sunat is derived from Arabic “sunnah (سنة)” — “(religious) way (of life)”)
  • Ekari: “cut the end of the member for which one fears shame” (in Gen. 17:10) (but typically: “the cutting custom”) (source for this and above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Cheke Holo: “peel for the purpose of making a sign” (source: Freddy Boswell in The Bible Translator 2009, p. 132ff. )
  • Hiri Motu: “cut the skin” (source: Deibler / Taylor 1977, p. 1079)
  • Garifuna: “cut off part of that which covers where one urinates”
  • Bribri: “cut the soft” (source for this and the one above: Ronald Ross)
  • Amele: deweg cagu qoc — “cut the body” (source: John Roberts)
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “cut the flesh of the sons like Moses taught” (source: Ronald D. Olson in Notes on Translation January, 1968, p. 15ff.)
  • Newari: “put the sign in one’s body” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Central Mazahua: “sign in his flesh”
  • Hopi: “being cut in a circle in his body” (source for this and above: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
  • Mandarin Chinese: gēlǐ (割礼 / 割禮) or “rite of cutting” (Protestant); gēsǔn (割损 / 割損) or “cut + loss” (Catholic) (Source: Zetzsche)
  • Tibetan: mdun lpags gcod (མདུན་​ལྤགས་​གཅོད།), lit. “fore + skin + cut” (source: gSungrab website )
  • Kutu: “enter the cloth (=undergarments)” (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Cherokee: “de-head” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 33)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Circumcision .

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 14:23)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Judas). The Tok Pisin and Cherokee specify this even more by using the dual (only including two, the Son and the Father).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 21:24)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding the addressee). (Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff. and SIL International Translation Department (1999))

In Huautla Mazatec, Tok Pisin, Cherokee, and Jarai, however, the translators selected the inclusive we.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (John 9:20)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the exclusive form (excluding Pharisees). The Tok Pisin and Cherokee translations specify this even more by using the dual (only including two, the parents of the blind man).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.

inclusive vs. exclusive pronoun (Matt. 17:27)

Many languages distinguish between inclusive and exclusive first-person plural pronouns (“we”). (Click or tap here to see more details)

The inclusive “we” specifically includes the addressee (“you and I and possibly others”), while the exclusive “we” specifically excludes the addressee (“he/she/they and I, but not you”). This grammatical distinction is called “clusivity.” While Semitic languages such as Hebrew or most Indo-European languages such as Greek or English do not make that distinction, translators of languages with that distinction have to make a choice every time they encounter “we” or a form thereof (in English: “we,” “our,” or “us”).

For this verse, translators typically select the inclusive form (including Peter). The Cherokee translation emphasizes this even more by using the dual form, specifically only including Peter and Jesus. (Source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 64).

Source: Velma Pickett and Florence Cowan in Notes on Translation January 1962, p. 1ff.