The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that is typically translated in English as “joy” or “happiness” is translated in the HausaCommon Language Bible idiomatically as farin ciki or “white stomach.” In some cases, such as in Genesis 29:11, it is also added for emphatic purposes.
Other languages that use the same expression include Southern Birifor (pʋpɛl), Dera (popolok awo), Reshe (ɾipo ɾipuhã). (Source: Andy Warren-Rothlin)
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:
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.”
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
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezra 6:16:
Kupsabiny: “And thereafter, the House of God was dedicated with happiness/joy. People who dedicated (it) were the priests, the Levites and all the people who had returned from slavery.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “At that time the people of Israel — the priests, the Levites, and other returned captives — all rejoiced and by celebrating a festival, dedicated the temple.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “The people of Israel — the priests, Levites, and the others who had-returned from captivity were joyful in celebrating the dedication of the temple of God.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “Then the priests and the Levites and all the other Israeli people who had returned from Babylon very joyfully dedicated the temple.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
The dedication of the Temple was the official consecration of the Temple to God for worship after the completion of its rebuilding (compare Neh 12.27-43). This was the occasion for the reinstitution of Temple worship and marked the restoration of the true community of Israel. A shift is made from the term “Jews,” which has been used in the Aramaic section of the text until now (from Ezra 4.8), to people of Israel to signal the significance of this event. The literal “sons of Israel” (Darby, Osty-Trinquet, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible) or “children of Israel” (King James Version) may be translated with a form equivalent to “Israelites” (Amplified Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). See also the comment on Ezra 2.1.
The people of Israel are divided into three categories: priests, Levites, and the rest of the returned exiles. For comments on priests and Levites, see Ezra 1.5. The rest of the returned exiles were the laity, that is, those who were not the professional workers in the Temple. These were literally “the rest of the sons of the exile.” The participants in the dedication included only those who returned from exile. It is these who are considered in the book of Ezra to be the true people of Israel.
Celebrated the dedication of this house of God with joy: Because the occasion is a festive one involving a special event, Revised Standard Version expresses the simple verb “made” of the original text as celebrated with dedication as its object. The event was marked by joy as was the dedication of the first Temple (1 Kgs 8.66). This is the second appearance of the theme of joy (see also Ezra 3.12-13; 6.22; Neh 8.10; 12.43). In some cultures there is a similar opening ceremony designated by a special term that may be used here for dedication, such as “inauguration” (Chouraqui). Alternatively, it may be necessary to use a descriptive phrase such as “putting the Temple in God’s hands.” New Century Version has “gave the Temple to God to honor him.”
Quoted with permission from Noss, Philip A. and Thomas, Kenneth J. A Handbook on Ezra. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2005. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
6:16a Then the people of Israel—the priests, the Levites, and the rest of the exiles—
¶ Afterwards, the people of Israel, that is, the priests, the temple workers of/from the clan of Levi and the other people who had returned, -or-
¶ After ⌊they completed the house of God⌋, the sacrificers and the descendants of Levi and all the other people of Israel who had come back to Judah from Babylon
6:16b celebrated the dedication of the house of God with joy.
held a joyful ceremony to dedicate the temple. -or-
dedicated the house of God with much joy.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.