6The scribe Shemaiah son of Nethanel, a Levite, recorded them in the presence of the king, and the officers, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech son of Abiathar, and the heads of ancestral houses of the priests and of the Levites—one ancestral house being chosen for Eleazar and one chosen for Ithamar.
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.
The Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin that is transliterated “Levites” in English (only the Contemporary English Version translates it as “temple helpers”) is translated in Ojitlán Chinantec as “temple caretakers,” Yatzachi Zapotec as “people born in the family line of Levi, people whose responsibility it was to do the work in the important church of the Israelites,” in Alekano as “servants in the sacrifice house from Jerusalem place,” and in Tenango Otomi as “helpers of priests.” (Source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125.)
In American Sign Language with a sign that combines “temple” + “servant.” (Source: Ruth Anna Spooner, Ron Lawer)
“Levite” in American Sign Language, source: Deaf Harbor
Some languages do not have a concept of kingship and therefore no immediate equivalent for the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin that is translated as “king” in English. Here are some (back-) translations:
Ninia Yali: “big brother with the uplifted name” (source: Daud Soesilio in Noss 2007, p. 175)
Nyamwezi: mutemi: generic word for ruler, by specifying the city or nation it becomes clear what kind of ruler (source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
Ghomála’: Fo (“The word Fo refers to the paramount ruler in the kingdoms of West Cameroon. He holds administrative, political, and religious power over his own people, who are divided into two categories: princes (descendants of royalty) and servants (everyone else).” (Source: Michel Kenmogne in Theologizing in Context: An Example from the Study of a Ghomala’ Christian Hymn))
Faye Edgerton retells how the term in Navajo (Dinė) was determined:
“[This term was] easily expressed in the language of Biblical culture, which had kings and noblemen with their brilliant trappings and their position of honor and praise. But leadership among the Navajos is not accompanied by any such titles or distinctions of dress. Those most respected, especially in earlier days, were their headmen, who were the leaders in raids, and the shaman, who was able to serve the people by appealing for them to the gods, or by exorcising evil spirits. Neither of these made any outward show. Neither held his position by political intrigue or heredity. If the headman failed consistently in raids, he was superceded by a better warrior. If the shaman failed many times in his healing ceremonies, it was considered that he was making mistakes in the chants, or had lost favor with the gods, and another was sought. The term Navajos use for headman is derived from a verb meaning ‘to move the head from side to side as in making an oration.’ The headman must be a good orator, able to move the people to go to war, or to follow him in any important decision. This word is naat’áanii which now means ‘one who rules or bosses.’ It is employed now for a foreman or boss of any kind of labor, as well as for the chairman of the tribal council. So in order to show that the king is not just a common boss but the highest ruler, the word ‘aláahgo, which expresses the superlative degree, was put before naat’áanii, and so ‘aláahgo naat’áanii ‘anyone-more-than-being around-he-moves-his-head-the-one-who’ means ‘the highest ruler.’ Naat’áanii was used for governor as the context usually shows that the person was a ruler of a country or associated with kings.”
And the scribe Shemaiah the son of Nethanel … is literally “And Shemaiah son of Nethanel the scribe….” Shemaiah, not his father, was the scribe or “secretary” (Good News Translation, New Living Translation), as Revised Standard Version makes clear. Regarding the translation of scribe, see the comments on 1 Chr 2.55.
The Masoretic Text says that Shemaiah was a Levite. A few Hebrew manuscripts have the plural, and this is the basis for the translation “from the Levites” (Klein), but the meaning is the same either way.
Recorded them may mean that Shemaiah wrote down the names of the leaders of the priestly groups on pieces of paper which were then drawn to decide the order, or it may mean he wrote down the names after they were drawn (so Good News Translation). If the interpretation reflected in Good News Translation is correct, as it seems to be, then the relationship between verses 5 and 6 may be more clearly expressed by restructuring this verse and beginning with “The descendants of Eleazar and of Ithamar took turns drawing lots” (Good News Translation, Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje).
In the presence of the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites: The princes may be rendered “the officials” (New International Version, Nueva Versión Internacional; similarly Good News Translation). Most versions take Zadok, Ahimelech, and the heads of the fathers’ houses of the priests and of the Levites as distinct from the princes. However, it is possible to understand all of those following the princes as in apposition to them. New International Version, for example, uses a colon (), saying “in the presence of the king and of the officials: Zadok the priest….”
The text clearly identifies Ahimelech as the son of Abiathar, but according to other Old Testament passages, Ahimelech was the father of Abiathar (1 Sam 23.6; 30.7) and the son of Ahitub (1 Sam 22.9, 11). Therefore some interpreters consider the text here and in 1 Chr 18.16 to be in error. Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch, for example, corrects the text to read “Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech” (so also Einheitsübersetzung). Others think that the Ahimelech mentioned here was the son of Abiathar and grandson of the Ahimelech mentioned in 1 Samuel. See the comments on 1 Chr 18.16 regarding the relationship between Ahimelech and Abiathar.
One father’s house being chosen for Eleazar and one chosen for Ithamar: The meaning of these words is not certain and there are textual problems as well. A footnote in Traduction œcuménique de la Bible states “The end of the verse is not clear and has given rise to several interpretations.” In the Masoretic Text this clause reads literally “a father’s house one [was] drawn for Eleazar, and drawn drawn for Ithamar.” The Masoretic Text seems to give exactly the wrong meaning, since in fact Eleazar’s descendants were divided into sixteen groups and Ithamar’s into only eight. Some scholars have therefore suggested that the names “Eleazar” and “Ithamar” should be reversed so that the clause reads “a father’s house one was drawn for Ithamar, and drawn drawn [indicating that two were drawn] for Eleazar.” Others have suggested that the sense of “drawn drawn for Ithamar” is that after a lot was cast for Eleazar, a lot was then cast for Ithamar and at the same time another one was also cast for Eleazar.
But the Masoretic Text also makes sense as Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament explains it in this way: Eleazar and Ithamar had approximately the same number of family groups. But Eleazar had twice as many heads of clans qualified to be in charge of one of these twenty-four groups. So each time one family group was assigned to one of the sixteen chiefs of Eleazar, two families were assigned to one of the eight chiefs of Ithamar. Stated in other words, each of the sixteen chiefs of Eleazar was assigned by lot to be in charge of one family group, while each of the eight chiefs of Ithamar was assigned by lot to be in charge of two family groups.
The Septuagint reads “a father’s house one one for Eleazar and one one for Ithamar.” Many scholars think that the Septuagint was based on a Hebrew text that read “one one for Eleazar and one (ʾechad) drawn (ʾachuz) for Ithamar.” This understanding lies behind a number of translations.
New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh reads “one clan more taken for Eleazar for each one taken of Ithamar.” Similar to New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is the rendering in La Sainte Bible: La version Etablie par les moines de Maredsous, which has “one family [then another] being drawn by lot for Eleazar, then a family for Ithamar.” Other translations following this interpretation include “so that two families were selected for Eleazar for each one selected for Ithamar” (New Jerusalem Bible; similarly Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch), “For every family selected by lot for Ithamar, two were selected for Eleazar” (Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente), “The lot was cast twice for the family of Eleazar and once for the family of Ithamar” (Nueva Versión Internacional), “listing two successive family groups from Eleazar before each one from Ithamar” (New American Bible; similarly Bible en français courant), “one family was drawn by lot for Eleazar, then another, while only one was drawn for Ithamar” (Traduction œcuménique de la Bible), and “The lot was cast, once for Ithamar and twice for Eleazar” (El libro del Pueblo de Dios). According to this interpretation, the first two divisions were assigned to Eleazar’s descendants, then the third to Ithamar’s descendants. Then divisions four and five to Eleazar’s descendants, and division six to Ithamar’s descendants, and so on, until all twenty-four divisions were assigned.
Others understand this clause as translated in Revised Standard Version. Revised English Bible, for example, says “one priestly family being taken from the line of Eleazar and one from that of Ithamar,” and La Bible du Semeur reads “They took alternately one family group for Eleazar and another for Ithamar” (similarly New International Version). Good News Translation and Nova Tradução na Linguagem de Hoje express the same meaning, only they make explicit here on the basis of verse 5 that this was done as they “took turns drawing lots.” According to this interpretation, this alternation occurred until sixteen divisions were drawn from both the line of Eleazar and that of Ithamar, and then eight more were drawn for the descendants of Eleazar.
The passive verb being chosen will have to be expressed as an active verb in some languages. One possible model that does this is “They chose by lot one….”
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.