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 2:13)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 1 Samuel 2:13:

  • Kupsabiny: “When Eli’s sons were priests, people used to bring their things to be burnt as sacrifices. And when meat was cooking/burning, the servant of the altar would come with a two or three forked stick” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “The practice the priests did the people like this — When anyone would bring a sacrifice, while its meat was being boiled, the priest’s helper would come holding a 3-pronged fork.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “because they would- not -follow the regulations/[lit. that-which-is-to-be-followed] regarding the portion/share that the priest receives from the offering of the people. This is what they would-do when there-was-someone (who) offers/sacrifices: While the meat that was-offered was-being-boiled, they would-have- their servant -go there bringing a big fork that has three teeth.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “While the people were boiling the meat from their sacrifices in the huge pot at the temple, one of Eli’s sons, would send his servant to come with a large three-pronged fork in his hand.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on 1 Samuel 2:13

There is one major difficulty of interpretation that must be resolved before this verse and the following can be translated. Which parts of verses 13-15 describe unacceptable conduct? (1) Do all of verses 13-15 describe the wrong behavior of Eli’s sons? (2) Or does only verse 15 describe the corrupt practice of Eli’s two sons, while verses 13-14 describe what the correct practice was supposed to be? The second interpretation is followed in Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, and Klein. But the first is clearly expressed in Good News Translation, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, and La Bible du Semeur. It also seems to be the sense of the translation found in Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible.

If the priests refers to priests in general, then this verse and the next verse seem to be describing the accepted pattern of behavior (so Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). If, on the other hand, the priests refers specifically to Eli’s sons, then the practice described in verses 13-14 is being condemned (so Good News Translation). To make clear the two different ways of rendering these verses, compare the following Revised English Bible rendering of verses 13-15 with that of Good News Translation (see also Klein’s translation, quoted at the end of verse 15).

Revised English Bible (similarly the New English Bible [New English Bible]) says:
The custom of the priests in their dealings with the people was this: when anyone offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come while the flesh was stewing and would thrust a three-pronged fork into the cauldron or pan or kettle or pot; and the priest would take whatever the fork brought out. This should have been their practice whenever the Israelites came to sacrifice at Shiloh; but now, even before the fat was burnt, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give me meat to roast for the priest; he will not accept what has been already stewed, only raw meat.”

Notice that Good News Translation inserts the word “Instead” in the middle of verse 13 to show that the practice described was not the accepted practice. La Bible du Semeur, which follows the same interpretation as Good News Translation, begins verse 13 as follows: “Indeed here is how they [the sons of Eli] acted toward the people.” Traduction œcuménique de la Bible also identifies the priests in verse 13 with the sons of Eli in verse 12 by saying “In their relationship to the people, these priests acted in the following way.” See also Bible en français courant: “Even though they [sons of Eli] were priests, here is how they conducted themselves in regard to the people.”

Revised English Bible clearly expresses the opposite interpretation by rendering the beginning of verse 13 as “The custom of the priests in their dealings with the people was this,” and the end of verse 14 as “This should have been their practice…; but now….”

Similar to Revised English Bible is New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, which begins verse 13 “This is how the priests used to deal with the people” and translates 14b-15a as “This was the practice at Shiloh with all the Israelites who came there. [But now] even before….” While the interpretation of Revised English Bible and New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh is clearly a possible way of understanding the text, the majority of modern versions seem to adopt the interpretation followed by Good News Translation, and this is the interpretation recommended to translators.

The identity of the priest’s servant is not entirely clear. The Hebrew is literally “the young man of the priest,” and the plural form of the word rendered servant here is rendered “young men” in verse 17. It is usually assumed that the servant is different from the priests, and nearly all translations reflect this understanding. It is possible, however, that Eli’s sons are referred to in both cases, and that the Hebrew should be rendered “son” rather than servant. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh says “the priest’s boy.” In other words, Eli’s two sons may be “the young men [= sons] of the priest [= Eli]” and they are also themselves priests. This is the interpretation favored in Klein and in the notes in La Bible Pléiade, but neither translation reflects this interpretation.

In addition to the above problems of interpretation and translation, the first words of verse 13, The custom of the priests with the people, may be connected to the end of verse 12. Compare New Revised Standard Version: “they had no regard for the LORD or for the duties of the priests to the people” (so also Good News Translation, New American Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible). Either interpretation is acceptable.

Three-pronged fork: in some languages this will have to be translated “a fork with three teeth” or “a fork with three fingers.” Others may have a special term for a fork with three prongs.

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 .