The name that is transliterated as “Abiathar” in English means “father of plenty,” “father of the great one.” (Source: Cornwall / Smith 1997 )
In Libras (Brazilian Sign Language) it is translated 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, 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:
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.”
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Chronicles 18:16:
Kupsabiny: “The big/chief priests were Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar. And the one in charge of the council was Shavsha.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelech son of Abiathar were priests. Shavsha the secretary.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The leading priests were Zadok the child of Ahitub and Ahimelec the child of Abiatar. The secretary was Shavsha.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were the Supreme Priests. Shavsha was the official secretary.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
And Zadok the son of Ahitub and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar were priests: Because of the way Revised Standard Version is worded here, there is a danger that on the first reading a person might think that Ahitub and Ahimelech were respectively 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 sentence may need 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 (1 Kgs 2.35; 4.2; 2 Chr 31.10; Ezra 7.2; Ezek 40.46; 43.19; 44.15; 48.11).
Instead of Ahimelech, the Masoretic Text actually has the name “Abimelech” (so Segond, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), but many translations follow other Hebrew manuscripts, the ancient versions, and the parallel text of 2 Sam 8.17 in reading “Ahimelech.” There is considerable confusion in the Old Testament texts as to which of Ahimelech and Abiathar was the father and which was the son. In 1 Sam 22.20; 23.6; and 30.7, Abiathar is presented as the son of Ahimelech; but here and in 2 Sam 8.17 and 1 Chr 24.6, Ahimelech is said to be the son of Abiathar. Contemporary English Version and Einheitsübersetzung correct the text here to agree with 1 Samuel by saying “Abiathar the son of Ahimelech.” Revised English Bible corrects the Hebrew of the whole clause to read “Zadok and Abiathar son of Ahimelech, son of Ahitub, were priests.”
Of course at the time of David, there were many priests. The sense here is that both Zadok and Ahimelech were High Priests.
And Shavsha was secretary: Good News Translation suggests that Shavsha be corrected to read “Seraiah” on the basis of 2 Sam 8.17. No doubt the same person is referred to in both passages, but there is no good textual basis for correcting the Masoretic Text here. Although the precise meaning of the Hebrew term rendered secretary is not settled, it is certain that the office involved more than that of a modern-day 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 Hebrew noun is based means “to count” or “to number.” New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh and Braun use the word “scribe,” but it should be noted that 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 a translation such as “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 such as “assistant to the king in charge of writing matters” or “learned person who wrote down things for the king.”
Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on 1-2 Chronicles, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2014. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.