priest

Click here to view graphically

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 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.

complete verse (1 Samuel 2:14)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Samuel 2:14:

  • Kupsabiny: “and pierced inside the pot. And all the meat that forked stick pierced was later on given to the sons of Eli. This is how they were doing to all the people of Israel who were coming to Shilo to make sacrifices to God.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Then, no matter what was in the pot or cauldron or two-eared pot, the priest would take away as much meat as came, having been pierced by the 3-pronged. All the Israelites who came to worship at Shiloh were treated this way.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Then the servant would-prick at the meat[s] inside the kettle or earthenware-pot. Whatever the fork would-bring-up would-be the share of the priests. This was what they would-do at every sacrifice/offering of the Israelinhon at Shilo.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “He would stick the fork into the meat in the pot, and whatever meat fastened onto the fork, he would take and give it to the priest who sent him. Eli’s sons did this to all the Israeli people who came to Shiloh to offer sacrifices.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 2:14

The terms for pan, or kettle, or caldron, or pot may present certain difficulties for translators, since it is often necessary to know their shape and what kind of material they were made of. The word for pan is the same as that translated “laver” in Exo 30.18 and Lev 8.11. It refers to a relatively shallow container that was made of bronze, in at least some cases. A kettle is mentioned less frequently in the Scriptures, and the same Hebrew word is often translated “basket” (2 Kgs 10.7; Psa 81.6; Jer 24.2), though sometimes “caldron” (2 Chr 35.13) or “boiling pot” (Job 41.20) is used. It would have been a relatively deeper container, probably also made of some kind of metal, or possibly of clay in this context. The word here translated caldron occurs elsewhere only in Micah 3.3, and it is not known what this receptacle was made of. The word translated pot is found elsewhere only twice (Num 11.8; Judges 6.19). It probably refers to a kind of earthenware container.

Fork: see verse 13.

For himself: Revised Standard Version follows the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the LatinVulgate here. But the Hebrew text does not say for himself. The Hebrew says “on it,” which is taken to mean “on the fork.” Compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh: “and whatever the fork brought up, the priest would take away on it.” But the Septuagint seems to express what is at least implicit in the Hebrew, and for translation reasons it is acceptable to add the words “for himself.”

The last sentence should be translated according to the decision made in verse 13. According to Good News Translation and La Bible du Semeur the sense is “So this is what they, that is, Eli’s sons, did at Shiloh.” Revised English Bible, however, understands these words as an expression of what priests should do, and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh understands them as an expression of what priests in general used to do. If the interpretation of Good News Translation was followed in verse 13, it should be followed here as well.

Quoted with permission from Omanson, Roger L. and Ellington, John E. A Handbook on the First and Second Books of Samuel, Volume 1. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2001. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .