This is a rehash/edit of something I posted a while back on "preist" versus "presbuteros":
The problem is working backward. It doesn't work to start with an English word that has drifted significantly from its etymological origins and project that new and modern meaning back into a Greek word that in its original context does not support it. It matters what the lexicons say presbuteros meant during the New Testament period. Semantic drift does occur, and without drawing in good lexicographic analysis as an objective measure of that change, you can't be sure what a word meant at
any given stage of it's progression through the various host languages. You can't do good translation without doing the necessary science.
Furthermore, as a matter of practical translation, those in English cultures influenced by centuries of Protestant differentiation between "priest" and "elder" will be truly unable to hear "priest" without inferring strong
sacerdotal overtones, which are incongruent with NT usage. I cannot hear it otherwise even with conscious effort. To me it's like trying to picture red while saying blue. No matter what contours "preost" may (or may not - see note below) have had in the 12th Century, the sacerdotal sense is arguably the modern winner in this contest, as attested by the Merriam-Webster definition's emphasis that in English, sacerdotal duty is a prominent aspect of the word "priest."
This state of affairs leaves the translator with only a few choices:
1) Go ahead and use "priest" for presbuteros, knowing in advance a large number of the intended readers are going to project sacerdotalism back into the Biblical text where it is
not inferred by a proper semantic analysis of presbuteros, such as we find in Louw-Nida. This is something of an activist approach. Translations can and no doubt will continue to be used to intentionally promote semantic drift in favor of some group. The new "politically correct" Bible translations are a good example of this.
But that's not a particularly helpful approach for those who wish to understand the word of God in it's original sense, on it's own terms. Translation is more than just science. It is also rooted in a certain trust of the translator, that they are making good faith representations of meaning in the choices they make. Using a historically and semantically overloaded term like "priest" for the much more bland and generic presbuteros would be a breach of that trust. Even if I were to turn Catholic tomorrow (God forbid), I could never do that. "Elder" would still be the better way to represent that term.
2) An alternative would be to do what the translators of the KJV did, just import the controversial word whole and untranslated into the host language, leaving context as the arbiter of meaning. That is how we got the word "Baptize," which is nothing but the Greek "baptizo," leaving people free to debate whether it means "immerse," "sprinkle," etc. I question the wisdom of that approach, but it would be better than using the misleading "priest," if the translators couldn't bring themselves to use "elder."
However, even that would lead to some oddball situations that solve easily with "elder." For example, in 1 Timothy 5:2 we have this:
Πρεσβυτέρῳ μὴ ἐπιπλήξῃς, ἀλλὰ παρακάλει ὡς πατέρα· νεωτέρους, ὡς ἀδελφούς· 2 πρεσβυτέρας, ὡς μητέρας· νεωτέρας, ὡς ἀδελφάς, ἐν πάσῃ ἁγνείᾳ.
Which translates as:
Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren; (2) The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters, with all purity.
Is Paul talking about the
office of elder? Hardly, because the passage proceeds to cover proper communication with younger men, older women, and younger women, clearly focusing on age, or age in combination with modes of showing respect.
And then what about those "elder women?" They are not women priests. But the word is presbuteros, with a feminine ending, thus presbuteras. So here it is obvious that "priest" would be completely wrong.
Then there's this passage:
Acts 23:14 And they came to the chief priests and elders, and said, We have bound ourselves under a great curse, that we will eat nothing until we have slain Paul. (KJV)
Which in the Douay Rheims comes out as:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the ancients, and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.
So your own translators have punted on this, avoiding both "priest" for "presbuteros," because what nonsense it would be to translate it thus:
23:14 Who came to the chief priests and the [priests], and said: We have bound ourselves under a great curse that we will eat nothing till we have slain Paul.
All this to say it matters little for Bible translation purposes what "preost" had bundled into it's meaning in the 12th Century. What matters for translation is, who is my target audience, and how do I get them to hear, in their own, current language, what the Bible actually says in the original, unimpeded by my own biases as translator?
Incidentally, there is another "origin story" for "priest" that takes another genetic path into the Greek, and surprisingly, in this version it doesn't go back to presbuteros, but hiereus!:
[after discussing the standard "presbuteros" theory ... ]
An alternative theory (to account for the -eo- of the Old English word) makes it cognate with Old High German priast, prest, from Vulgar Latin *prevost "one put over others," from Latin praepositus "person placed in charge," from past participle of praeponere (see provost). In Old Testament sense, a translation of Hebrew kohen, Greek hiereus, Latin sacerdos[!?] (emphasis added by me).
From here: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=priest
Granted, this is a minority position. But I find it fascinating that an alternate theory even exists. Take the "v" out of "prevost" and viola! you have "preost!" Which again highlights the need to be careful about relying too heavily on long chains of etymology. Lexicography doesn't rely on a single fragile data point drawn from an irrelevant time period, but on a large number of data points all working together to give us an accurate view of how a word was used during the period of history and by the people most relevant to our inquiry. We want to know how
Paul used presbuteros, not how
Chaucer used preost.
Peace,
SR