The English language is unusually rich—in the sense of having two or more diverse ways to speak of almost anything.
This is due primarily to its drawing from two major sources: the influence of the Latin of its Roman conquerors (and, later, of its Norman French ones) and the Germanic languages of the Anglo-Saxons—plus the lingering influence of Celtic dialects and old Scandinavian languages as well.
But, when it comes to “priest” it’s just the opposite situation. The English language uses one word to express two or more very different meanings.
The English word “priest” has tangled roots: Old English, preost—related to Dutch, priester—from Late Latin, presbyter, from the Greek presbyteros (older), meaning an old man, a senior, an elder.
But, its roots notwithstanding, usually, in English, the word “priest” means not an elder but a person whose function is to offer sacrifices, serving as an intermediary between a god or God and worshipers.
Latin has a word for such a person, not presbyter but sacerdos (one who does sacred [things]). Oddly, English doesn’t. The English language has an adjective, “sacerdotal”, but not an noun—although most Latin-rooted languages do.
Scriptural scholarship has called attention to the fact that the early leaders of the local Christian communities, after the time of the apostles, were called elders (presbyters).
As ranking of service and authority gradually developed, the elder (presbyter) was accountable to an overseer (episcopus), a kind of head elder, and assisted by helpers or ministers (the diaconus).
Once Christianity became institutionalized in the Roman Empire as the imperial state religion, it was natural enough to begin to think of its leaders as priests (in the sense of sacerdos) since pagan Rome always had a caste of official priests with such a role.
Besides, the Bible itself lent support to this understanding of local Church leaders as priests (in the sense of sacerdos). Judaism had a religious organization somewhat similar to pagan Rome with the ministerial tribe of Levi and its official Aaronic priests serving under the overall supervision of a high priest.
Other gradual changes were taking place regarding the status and authority of priests.
In pagan Rome and biblical Judaism, the priest always had a certain social status and religious authority. With the decline of the western Roman Empire and the increasing assumption of civil authority in the West by the bishop of Rome, the importance of the ecclesiastical leaders increased.
This was further augmented by the decline of overall education in the West. The majority of literate and somewhat educated people were the ecclesiastics, the clergy. Feudal Western society became stratified into nobility, clergy, and common people.
The development of sacramental theology added another dimension to the perception of the priest. He was not only a spiritual and social leader, a man of learning and superior status; but also by his ordination he was changed entirely—he had become a sacred and holy person, an alter Christus.
As language, theology, and the world around us change and evolve, what do we now mean by priest: presbyter or sacerdos? clergyman or lay? servant or superior? What shapes our understanding: what the word meant to us in childhood? after higher education? in adult life? in old age?
If it’s tricky business being clear what “priest” means nowadays, imagine how much more complicated it is to be one!
21 April 2019