Exegesis:

egeneto … hiereus tis ‘there was a priest.’ The narrative begins without any introductory word which connects the preface with the rest of the Gospel. egeneto is here equivalent to ēn ‘was.’

en tais hēmerais Hērōdou basileōs tēs Ioudaias ‘in the days of Herod, king of Judea.’

hēmerai in the plural of the time of life as in v. 7, or activity as here. Hence The Four Gospels – a New Translation translates, “in the reign of Herod”.

Hērōdēs Herod I, the Great, who reigned from 37-4 B.C. as king over Palestine; appointed by the Romans, to whom he was responsible. basileōs is in apposition to Hērōdou, and without article because of the following genitive tes Ioudaias.

hē Ioudaia ‘Judea,’ properly of the southern part of Palestine, but sometimes used of the whole country inhabited by the Jewish nation, either including the Samaritans (here), or not (4.44; 6.17; 7.17; 23.5). When used in this wider meaning the name has both an administrative and a geographical connotation.

hiereus tis ‘a (certain) priest.’ The indefinite pronoun often serves to introduce someone or something new in the narrative, cf. e.g. 7.2; 10.31; 17.12.

onomati Zacharias ‘of the name (of) Zechariah.’ onomati, dative of onoma ‘name,’ has adverbial function.

ex ephēmerias Abia ‘belonging to the division of Abijah.’

ephēmeria (also v. 8) ‘division,’ ‘section,’ i.e. one of the 24 divisions into which the priests were divided for the performing of the daily service in the temple of Jerusalem, cf. 1 Chr. 24.1-19. Each division served for one week, cf. Strack-Billerbeck II, 55ff.

kai gunē autō ek tōn thugaterōn Aarōn scil. ēn ‘was,’ ‘and he had a wife who belonged to the female descendants of Aaron.’ Syntactically gunē (ēn) autō ‘he had a wife’ is the main clause and ek tōn thugaterōn Aarōn is an adjectival phrase modifying gunē, but semantically this phrase is the most important: not that Zechariah had a wife, but that his wife was also of priestly origin is what matters. Hence several modern translators change the syntactic pattern accordingly, cf. “his wife was a descendant of Aaron” (Translator’s New Testament).

gunē ‘woman,’ ‘wife.’

thugatēr ‘daughter,’ here in the plural denoting female descendants. The term ‘belonging to the female descendants of Aaron’ identifies Zechariah’s wife as the daughter of a priest. This is in accordance with the rules of Jewish tradition, cf. Strack-Billerbeck II, 69f.

Translation:

Above (first remark on vv. 1-4) it has been stated that Luke’s directly addressing Theophilus is restricted to the dedication and does not continue in the body of the narrative. Consequently, in a language where the use of honorifics is obligatory the translator will from v. 5 onward no longer have to use the honorific forms that are required by Luke’s relationship with and respect for the honourable Theophilus. But even so the translator still has a problem to solve. In the conversations he is recording he has to decide in which instances and to what degree he will make his personages use honorifics when addressing each other; in the rest of the narrative he must know how and when to refer respectfully to persons, possessions, sayings and deeds of the participants in the events he is reporting. To that end he must study the social scene and the personal interrelationships described in the Gospel, trying to look at them from the view point of the receptor culture, and then, in accordance with its norms of linguistic etiquette, to decide what are the rank and status of his personages in relation to each other and what honorifics are due to them. Some of the most common factors determining these norms are genealogical descent, occupation and age. The influence each of them has on linguistic etiquette, and the way they intermingle, differ from language to language; they may counteract each other (as in the case of a person of superior family or caste having an inferior occupation); their influence may vary with circumstances (in a public appearance, for instance, honorifics are more regularly and extensively applied than in the intimate sphere).

All this means that the use of honorifics often is not rigidly regulated and that, therefore, the translator has the responsible task of choosing between alternative renderings. If his choices are not in tune with linguistic etiquette, including its exceptions, the receptors will infer that he is an ignoramus, or, worse, they will misinterpret his intentions, supposing e.g. that he wishes to express disdain for his personages (when he does not use honorifics where they are clearly due according to receptor language norms), or to ridicule them (in the reverse case).

It is in these choices between alternatives that a subjective factor enters, i.e. the point of view of the narrator, his opinion of the personages and his involvement in the narrative. The translator has to keep in mind that he has to tell the story from the viewpoint of Luke. Accordingly, he must try to view the social scene and to use the appropriate honorifics in the way a Christian of the second generation would have done had he been a member of the receptor culture. If with reference to Joseph, for instance, there is a choice between non-honorific language (because Joseph’s actual position and occupation seem to have been rather low) and honorific language (because of his royal descent), he will prefer the second alternative, which agrees with the respect Luke would have felt, and the translator himself feels, for Jesus’ human father. Similarly, in the case of Jesus, the hidden Messiah, he will probably prefer honorifics which agree with the fact that Jesus belonged to the Davidic clan. In recording Jesus’ encounters and debates with the Pharisees he may hesitate whether to make Jesus address his adversaries in non-honorific language, or to envisage him as showing respect to the religious leaders of his people and using the honorifics due to them; he will probably be happy then, if linguistic etiquette allows him the reciprocal use of honorifics, since the public character of the occasions requires formal politeness on both sides. However, alternatives will not always be available. Thus, with reference to Jesus’ disciples the actual historical circumstances described in the Gospel usually exclude the use of honorifics, even though a Christian may feel respect towards these followers and friends of his Lord.

In the following notes all this cannot be touched upon in detail, but by way of example a few problems of this kind will be discussed on the basis of some honorific languages best known to the present author, especially Balinese; cf. also on 1.31, 42, 68-75; 2.48f; 3.22; 4.3, 21, 23; 6.36; 15.21, 29; 20.19; 22.67; 23.3; 24.18, 25; etc.

The beginning of a narrative, or of a new section, may have to be marked by a specific expression, e.g. ‘to-begin-with’ (Malay), or a specific construction or sentence type, e.g. inversion of subject and verb. The form chosen should agree with the character of the story that follows. Thus the introductory term ‘it-is-told’ may suggest a fiction story in Balinese, and the same would be true in Sranan Tongo of the sentence type, ‘there was a priest in the days of H…,’ whereas ‘in the days of H … there was a priest’ is a good beginning of any story.

The introduction of a new unrelated character, either at the beginning of a narrative, as is the case here, or in the course of it, may be subject to specific rules. In Shipibo-Conibo, for instance, one has to use an introducing sentence, followed by a characterizing expression in apposition to it, ‘There was a man, one-whom-they-made-to-ask God (i.e. a priest).’ In Cashinahua, each new unrelated character is introduced by a one-phrase sentence, and then described. This may lead to a restructuring of the verse, so that Zechariah is mentioned first.

In the days of Herod, king of Judea, or, ‘(in the time) when H. was king of (or, reigned over) J..’ The name may require an honorific name qualifier or title, e.g. ‘His Majesty H.,’ ‘king H..’ King (also in 7.25; 14.31; 19.38; 21.12; 22.25; 23.2f, 37f), or, ‘chief,’ ‘the one in authority, or, command,’ ‘the one who holds the country’ (Ekari, a newly coined phrase), ‘the highest one-who-moves-the-head-from-side-to-side (i.e. headman)’ (Navajo).

A priest. In a language like Balinese the rendering chosen refers to a priest of Brahmin caste, a person entitled to honorifics.

Of the division of Abijah, or, ‘one of the group of Ab.,’ ‘one of those-who-were with Ab.’ (Navajo), or, ‘one of those who held (i.e. were responsible) to the late Ab.’ (Tboli); cf. also ‘that man, being an Abijah-ite (formed with an affix indicating membership of a group related to a person) used to work when their day of work was fulfilled’ (Shipibo-Conibo). Division. The Greek term views the referent as a group performing daily services (cf. Shipibo-Conibo), but many versions have ‘division’ (which is formally closer to the O.T. equivalent of the term used), or, ‘shift’ (Thai), classe (Bible de Jérusalem). — Names of persons already dead may have to be marked as such, as is the case in this verse with Abijah and Aaron in Tboli.

He had a wife of the daughters of Aaron, or, ‘he had married (for which see on 14.20) one of the descendants of A.’; or, taking ‘wife’ as the subject (see Exegesis), ‘his wife came-out (i.e. descended) from tribe of A.’ (Kituba), ‘his wife was of the family/clan of A.’ (Hindi, Santali; Apache). In socially stratified communities the term used for a wife of the same caste or status as her husband (which is the case here) may differ from that for a wife of lower status. Elsewhere the term a husband uses when referring to his wife differs from the one applied by others to the wife when speaking to the husband. Aaron was considered the ancestor of all priestly families in Israel; hence such renderings of the clause as, “his wife also was of priestly descent (New English Bible), or, also belonged to a priestly family” (Good News Translation), ‘the parents of his wife Elizabeth were also priests’ (Cuyono). — Aaron and some other biblical personages are also mentioned in the Koran, with the result that their names are rather well known to Muslims, in arabicized forms that are more or less divergent from the biblical ones. To adopt such forms, or to take them as model of transliteration, as has been done in several versions in predominantly Muslim countries, can be an acceptable procedure if the function the person in question has in the Koran is not intrinsically different from its biblical counterpart, and if the two forms of the name rather closely resemble each other (as is the case with Harun—for “Aaron”, Jibril or Jabraʾil—for “Gabriel”, Mariam—‘Maria’/“Mary”, Yusuf—“Joseph”, Nuh—“Noah”, Da(w)ud—“David”, Yunus—“Jonah”, Ishak—“Isaac”, Yaʾkub—“Jacob”, Sulaiman—“Solomon”, Lut—“Lot”); it is less acceptable when the differences in form are rather great (cf. Yahya—‘Johannes’/ “John”); but it is decidedly objectionable when there is a basic contrast in function of the two persons, as in the case of Isa—“Jesus”, and Ibrahim—“Abraham” (cf. below on vv. 31 and 55).

The final clause, and her name was Elizabeth may better be embedded in the preceding sentence, as done in Cuyono (see above), Apache.

Quoted with permission from Reiling, J. and Swellengrebel, J.L. A Handbook on the Gospel of Luke. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1971. For this and other handbooks for translators see here . Make sure to also consult the Handbook on the Gospel of Mark for parallel or similar verses.