family / clan / house

The Hebrew terms that are translated as “family” or “clan” or “house” or similar in English are all translated in Kwere as ng’holo or “clan.” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)

In the English translation by Goldingay (2018) it is translated as “kin-group.”

See also tribe.

faithful

The Greek, Hebrew, and Ge’ez that is rendered as “faithful” in English is (back-) translated in various ways:

See also faith / believe.

untranslatable verses

The Swedish Bibel 2000 declared the 69 Old Testament verses referenced herein as “untranslatable.” Typically, other Bible translations translate those verses and mention in footnotes that the translation is uncertain or give alternate readings. Christer Åsberg, the Translation Secretary with the Swedish Bible Society at that time, explains why the Swedish Bible Society decided to not translate these verses at all (in The Bible Translator 2007, p. 1ff. ):

“In the new Swedish translation (SB) of 2000, [some verses are] not translated at all; [they are] indicated with three hyphens inside square brackets [- - -] [with a] reference to the appendix, where in the article ‘Text’ one will find a paragraph with roughly the following content:

In some cases the text is unintelligible and the variant readings differing to such an extent, that it is quite impossible to attain a reasonable certainty of what is meant, although some isolated word may occur, whose meaning it is possible to understand.

“If Bible translators find the Hebrew text untranslatable, what kind of text is it that they have produced in the translation into their own language? When a footnote says ‘The Hebrew is not understandable,’ what then is the printed text a translation of? And if the translators prefer to do without footnotes, are they then really released from the responsibility of informing their readers that the text they read is just mere guesswork?

“To leave a blank space in a Bible text seems to be an offensive act for many. (. . . ) To admit that a piece of Holy Scripture makes no sense at all may have been unimaginable in times past. In our enlightened era, an overprotective concern for the readers’ trust in the word of God is apparently a decisive factor when a translator tries to translate against all odds. The verdict ‘untranslatable’ is much more frequent in scholarly commentaries on different Bible books written by and for experts than in the translations or footnotes of the same books designed for common readers.

“Another reason (. . .) is a professional, and very human, reluctance to admit a failure. Also, many Bible translators lack translational experience of other literary genres and other classical texts where this kind of capitulation is a part of the daily run of things. They may have an innate or subconscious feeling that the Bible has unique qualities not only as a religious document but also as a linguistic and literary artifact. Completeness is felt to be proof of perfection. Some translators, and not so few of their clients, are unfamiliar with a scholarly approach to philological and exegetical matters. In some cases their background have made them immune to a kind of interpretative approximation common in older translations, confessional commentaries, and sermons. Therefore, their tolerance towards lexical, grammatical, and syntactical anomalies tends to be comparatively great.

“It is very hard to discern and to define the boundary between something that is extremely difficult and something that is quite impossible. I am convinced that all Bible translators in their heart of hearts will admit that there actually are some definitely untranslatable passages in the Bible, but are there a dozen of them or a score? Are there fifty or a hundred? Not even a group of recognized experts would probably pick out the same ten most obvious cases. (. . .)

“Conclusions:

  1. There are untranslatable passages in the Bible.
  2. How many they are is impossible to say—except for the translation team that decides which passages are untranslatable.
  3. An untranslatable passage cannot and should therefore not be translated.
  4. The lacuna should be marked in a consistent way.
  5. The translating team should stipulate their criteria for untranslatability as early as possible.
  6. It is an ethical imperative that the readers be comprehensively informed.
  7. Untranslatability has been and can be displayed in many different ways.
  8. An explanatory note should not confuse linguistic untranslatability with other kinds of textual or translational difficulties.
  9. The information given should make it clear that the translators’ recognition of untranslatability is a token of respect for the Bible, not a proof of depreciation.
  10. You shall not fear the void, but the fear of the void.”

With thanks to Mikael Winninge, Director of Translation, Swedish Bible Society

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.

complete verse (2 Chronicles 31:18)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Chronicles 31:18:

  • Kupsabiny: “When the food was distributed to the priests who had devoted themselves completely to their work, it was also distributed to their wives, their sons, their daughters and their small children.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “Shares were distributed to all whose names were written in the book of the genealogy, with their wives, sons, [and] daughters. For they had carried out the practice of purifying themselves.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “The families of the Levites also were given — their wives, children, including their little children. This was done to all the Levite who were listed in the record of the descendants, for they were faithful in becoming-clean of themselves.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “They included all their little children and wives and other sons and daughters whose names were on the scrolls where their clans’ names were written, because they also faithfully had dedicated themselves to Yahweh.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on 2 Chronicles 31:18

The priests were enrolled with all their little children, their wives, their sons, and their daughters, the whole multitude: The Hebrew text does not have a stated subject at the beginning of this sentence. Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version insert the noun priests, which is not in the Hebrew. Some interpreters think the subject of were enrolled is the Levites. But the context seems to favor understanding the subject to be both the priests and the Levites. If the priests were enrolled from the age of three, while the Levites were enrolled from the age of twenty, this means that the families of the priests began receiving support long before the families of the Levites did.

The passive verb were enrolled translates a Hebrew infinitive that functions as a noun, as also in the previous verse. It may be made active by specifying an indefinite agent, as suggested in the previous verse.

Their wives may be understood to mean that each priest had several wives or only one wife. Since each priest most certainly had more than one son and one daughter, the sense may well be that some priests had more than one wife.

The whole multitude is taken by Good News Translation to mean “other dependents,” but it is also possible that this phrase is a summary expression encompassing all those already mentioned. New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, for example, renders the first sentence of this verse as “and the registry of the dependents of their whole company—wives, sons and daughters.” Dillard is similar with “they were registered with all their dependents—wives, sons and daughters—the entire community.” In these translations the Hebrew word rendered little children is taken to mean “dependents” in general and not “infants.” But the Hebrew may be interpreted in a slightly different way. Since the Hebrew noun translated multitude often refers to the whole assembly of religious workers and lay people, here it may be referring to the community as a whole. Following this interpretation, New Jerusalem Bible says “And the official genealogy included all their household, their wives, their sons and their daughters, throughout the community.”

For they were faithful in keeping themselves holy: The connector for seems to introduce the reason why the priests and Levites could be officially enrolled. The sense of the Hebrew clause here is not clear. It seems to mean that the priests and Levites were enrolled and provided provisions because they were required to keep themselves ritually pure and ready to serve in the Temple at any time (so Good News Translation). That is, since the priests and Levites who were not on duty at the Temple did not eat in the sacrificial meals at the Temple, they were provided food for themselves and their families. But the sense could also be that their families received provisions because they kept themselves ritually pure (so Revised Standard Version). It is also possible to understand the Hebrew to mean that they received food “for they devoted themselves faithfully to the holy things” (An American Translation).

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 .

SIL Translator’s Notes on 2 Chronicles 31:18

31:18a The genealogy included all the little ones, wives, sons, and daughters in the whole assembly.

They distributed the gifts to the young children, the wives, and the sons and daughters of all the men whose names were found in the list of priestly families.
-or-
They gave gifts to all the family members including the babies, the boys and girls, and the wives of the ones ⌊identified⌋ in the records ⌊of the clan of Levi⌋.

31:18b For they had faithfully consecrated themselves as holy.

These priests and Levites had been faithful to purify themselves ⌊to serve Yahweh⌋.
-or-
This was because they had been faithful to set themselves apart ⌊for service to Yahweh⌋.

© 2021, 2022 by SIL International®
Made available under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA) creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.
All Scripture quotations in this publication, unless otherwise indicated, are from The Holy Bible, Berean Standard Bible.
BSB is produced in cooperation with Bible Hub, Discovery Bible, OpenBible.com, and the Berean Bible Translation Committee.