Since both of these terms are translations of the same Greek word, there is no reason to have two separate entries. They should be consolidated into one, in the kt group. The distinction between them turns on the singular versus the plural. The article should explain this, and not demand that they be translated differently, since they were not different in the original.
This is making the case that though the same word is used for both in the old testament, i assume this is referring to הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל that the two should be merged. Just my opinion, i contest that they should remain separate due to Aramaic kahana rabba and Greek separation of ἀρχιερέα, and ἀρχιερεῖς specifically in Mark 14:53. That’s just my opinion, and why I have them separated to begin with. just offering my thoughts. Thanks, Andrew
Wow, those other languages did not go through.
Mark 14:53 indicates that Jesus was lead to THE high priest. then ALL the chief priests and elders came together. It seems to imply a separation.
@andrew_belcher please try posting the non English again, it should be working now.
This is making the case that though the same word is used for both in the Old Testament, I assume this is referring to הַכֹּהֵן הַגָּדוֹל that the two should be merged.
Just my opinion, I contest that they should remain separate due to Aramaic kahana rabba and Greek separation of ἀρχιερέα, and ἀρχιερεῖς (pluralized but distinct), specifically in Mark 14:53.
That’s just my opinion, and why I have them separated to begin with. just offering my thoughts.
Andrew, I don’t see anything in what you said that argues against my original points. We cannot demand that translators translate ἀρχιερέα and ἀρχιερεῖς with different words, as our tW articles currently do, since the original writers did not. It is the same word in Greek, and will be in many other languages, as well. We need to explain the difference between singular and plural, but not demand different words.
I wonder if for the NT, it may not be necessary to distinguish “chief priest” from “high priest” because the same word is used in Greek. But perhaps in the OT there should be a distinction for “chief priest” (kohen harosh in 2 kings 25:18) and “high priest’ (hakkohen hammashiah in Lev 4:3 and hakkohen haggadol in Num 35:25).
For tW, simpler is better. Since the article(s) are talking about facets of the same basic concept it would be much better to have one article. Detailed information can and should go into the lexicons that we are building.
There is a page for “priest, priests, priesthood” and a page for “high priest.”
The page for “high priest” has the following Translation Suggestions:
“High priest” could be translated as “supreme priest” or “highest ranking priest.”
Make sure this term is translated differently from the term “chief priest.”
Susan, even though there are different ways to refer to the same office in the OT, it is not necessary or desirable to have different tW pages for each one. One page for “high priest” is still sufficient, and on that page should be the different ways that concept can be expressed. The “Chief Priest” and “High Priest” articles should be consolidated into one page. The following sentence should also be deleted: Make sure this term is translated differently from the term “chief priest.”
Sorry, Perry. I hadn’t realize that there was a page for “chief priests,” but I just saw the link to it on the page for “priest.”
But I thought that at any given time there could be one high priest and multiple chief priests. If that is true, then it seems that they would be somewhat different offices.
Yes, they are different offices, but not different words. So there should only be one tW entry. The difference turns on the singular vs. plural of the same word. That can be explained on the one tW entry page. We cannot demand that the MTT use different words for what is one word in the original!
No due date set.
This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?