19For when our ancestors were being led captive to Persia, the pious priests of that time took some of the fire of the altar and secretly hid it in the hollow of a dry cistern, where they took such precautions that the place was unknown to anyone.
Tzotzil: “[people who] are zealously doing what they think is God’s word”
Mezquital Otomi: “[people who] very much believe what they have been taught about God” (source for this and five above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
Chichewa interconfessional translation, publ. 1999: “[people who] love God” (source: Wendland 1998, p. 90)
Uma: “[people who] submit to Lord God” (Source: Uma Back Translation)
Yakan: “very religious” (source: Yakan Back Translation)
Western Bukidnon Manobo: “[people who] are faithful in carrying out the commands of God” (source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
Kankanaey: “[people who] are serving God” (source: Kankanaey Back Translation)
Tagbanwa: “[people who] are indeed devout-worshipers of God” (Source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
Bariai: “[people who] respect God” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
Kupsabiny: “[people who] have dedicated themselves to God” (source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
German: “God-fearing” (gottesfürchtig) or “pious” (fromm)
Low German translation by Johannes Jessen, publ. 1933, republ. 2006: “[people who] take their faith very seriously” (source for this and above: Zetzsche)
HausaCommon Language Bible: “owners of worshiping God” (source: Hausa Common Language Bible Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “godly” (source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
Bura-Pabir: “sacrifice mound” (source: Andy Warrren-Rothlin)
Kalanga: “fireplace of sacrifice” (source: project-specific notes in Paratext)
Cherokee: “fire nurturing place” (source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 26) (note that the Jewish priest is “fire feeder” in Cherokee)
The Ignaciano translators decided to translate the difficult term in that language according to the focus of each New Testament passage in which the word appears (click or tap here to see the rest of this insight
Willis Ott (in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.) explains:
Matt. 5:23,24: “When you take your offering to God, and arriving, you remember…, do not offer your gift yet. First go to your brother…Then it is fitting to return and offer your offering to God.” (The focus is on improving relationships with people before attempting to improve a relationship with God, so the means of offering, the altar, is not focal.)
Matt. 23:18 (19,20): “You also teach erroneously: ‘If someone makes a promise, swearing by the offering-place/table, he is not guilty if he should break the promise. But if he swears by the gift that he put on the offering-place/table, he will be guilty if he breaks the promise.'”
Luke 1:11: “…to the right side of the table where they burn incense.”
Luke 11.51. “…the one they killed in front of the temple (or the temple enclosure).” (The focus is on location, with overtones on: “their crime was all the more heinous for killing him there”.)
Rom. 11:3: “Lord, they have killed all my fellow prophets that spoke for you. They do not want anyone to give offerings to you in worship.” (The focus is on the people’s rejection of religion, with God as the object of worship.)
1Cor. 9:13 (10:18): “Remember that those that attend the temple have rights to eat the foods that people bring as offerings to God. They have rights to the meat that the people offer.” (The focus is on the right of priests to the offered food.)
Heb. 7:13: “This one of whom we are talking is from another clan. No one from that clan was ever a priest.” (The focus in on the legitimacy of this priest’s vocation.)
Jas. 2:21: “Remember our ancestor Abraham, when God tested him by asking him to give him his son by death. Abraham was to the point of stabbing/killing his son, thus proving his obedience.” (The focus is on the sacrifice as a demonstration of faith/obedience.)
Rev. 6:9 (8:3,5; 9:13; 14:18; 16:7): “I saw the souls of them that…They were under the table that holds God’s fire/coals.” (This keeps the concepts of: furniture, receptacle for keeping fire, and location near God.)
Rev. 11:1: “Go to the temple, Measure the building and the inside enclosure (the outside is contrasted in v. 2). Measure the burning place for offered animals. Then count the people who are worshiping there.” (This altar is probably the brazen altar in a temple on earth, since people are worshiping there and since outside this area conquerors are allowed to subjugate for a certain time.)
In the Hebraic English translation of Everett Fox it is translated as slaughter-site and likewise in the German translation by Buber / Rosenzweig as Schlachtstatt.
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.), in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang) and in Toposa as “sacred rituals specialist” (source: Schröder 2026, p. 117).
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.”
A paragraph break may be inserted here at the beginning of the long digression in 1.19–2.15 (so Revised Standard Version).
For when our fathers were being led captive to Persia: The connector For introduces the digression and may be omitted (so Good News Bible). The Israelites in view here were actually taken to Babylonia as exiles (see 2~Kgs 24.14-16). Babylonia became part of the Persian Empire later, but the translator cannot take the liberty of changing Persia to “Babylonia.” “Ancestors” (Good News Bible) is much better than fathers, since females and males alike were taken into exile. We may translate this clause as “At the time when enemy soldiers captured our ancestors and took them to Persia.”
The pious priests of that time took some of the fire of the altar and secretly hid it in the hollow of a dry cistern: The pious priests of that time refers to priests who carefully followed God’s laws then. The writer apparently contrasts the devout priests of times past with the priests of his own time. Good News Bible fails to make the point that the priests of those days were all really devout men, in contrast to the priests at the time of the writer. Good News Bible says “a few devout priests,” which is natural English and sensible in this context, since no more than a few priests could have been involved in the action here. However, we suggest that the following model is probably more accurate: “the devout priests of that time.” The writer is probably not thinking of the few who actually performed the act, but of the concern of all the priests that the fire not be allowed to go out. In languages that do not have a single term for pious, translators may render the pious priests of that time as “the priests of that time, all men faithful to God.” The fire of the altar was supposed to burn continuously and never go out (see Lev 6.12-13). A cistern is a tank for holding water (compare 1Macc 7.19, where the Greek word here is rendered “pit”). In ancient Palestine, cisterns were cut from bedrock. In areas where the rock was porous limestone, the walls of the cistern were plastered. For the hollow of, Good News Bible has “the bottom of.” While either rendering is correct, neither is necessary, since a dry cistern is by definition a hollow space, and obviously anything put in it is placed in the bottom. The idea of hiding fire in a cistern and expecting it to keep burning is strange, but there is no way of making it sound less strange. This is simply part of the story, but it may be partially explained by verse 36 (see the comments there).
Where they took such precautions that the place was unknown to any one: This rather awkward clause is nicely rendered in Good News Bible. Another possible rendering is “They made sure that no one knew about it.”
An alternative model for this verse is:
• At the time when our enemies [or, enemy soldiers] captured our ancestors and took them to Persia, the priests of that time, all men who were faithful to God, took some fire from the altar, and secretly hid it in a dry cistern. They made sure that no one knew what they had done.
Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Maccabees. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2011. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.