A rephrasing of the question I posted might more nearly elicit a relevant answser: When, between Aelfric and Luther, did someone first translate Hebrew kohen > Greek iepuc = hiereus > Latin sacerdos into English, as [if it were] a derivative of Hebrew zaqen > Greek npecbutepoc = presbyteros > Latin senior / senex / presbyterus etc.?
Maybe this form of it will help any reader who will try to understand my question.
My question touches upon a shift in usage crucial to our understanding the lexeme 'priest' with a modicum of intellectual acumen.
My most recent question concerned the rendering of kohen, first into Greek, then into Latin, then into old English, and then into modern English versions. One response given seemed irrelevant.
Although the causative aspect of qarebh, was used, especially in P (the 'priestly' source documents) of what a kohen does, with objects implying some kind of qorban 'gift', neither it nor any of its derivatives regularly identified, as seems to be alleged, the personage of an officiant, as did kohen. Compare Fuerst on kohen at p. 544 et seqq. (N.b. that doubling a letter is the time-honored means of turning a singular into a plural as here) with his p. 1011 on qarebh.
A kohen need not be an old man (zaqen). Compare the ritual duties of very young Samuel. Certain French versions certainly do better than English versions by putting 'sacrificateur' for kohen, regardless of which etymological conjecture seems best for kohen.
Within my question Aelfric was meant as a terminus a quo, simply because I know that, where kohen would be the background lexeme historically, Aelfric has in the English of his time 'sacerd', a transliteration of the Latin sacerdos -otis.
Thereafter Luther's 'Priester', became my terminus ad quem, because he thus renders kohen. And that constitutes the ground of my question. The object of it would be to pinpoint, as far as possible, when the church's 'old man' as a community leader was first substituted in vernacular versions for the Israelite ritualist in English versions of the Scriptures. HIstorically speaking it amounted to replacing kohen 'ritualist' with zaqen 'senior citizen'. I suspect that few of your religious contributors even realize that this was done.
My question proves vital, because this shift has caused great confusion, as when religionists of churchdom argue over "the priesthood of all believers." They really have in mind Luther's concept that the laity should be idealized as spiritual kohanim, more like 'those offering sacrifice'. Obviously, protestant leaders did not think that all believers are old men. Nevertheless, an etymological understanding of presbyteri wouild result in such nonsense. Moreover, 'priest' in modern ecclesiastical usage has often been explained as really a presbyteros in many historical churches, as among the Anglicans.
The confusion will have been further compounded from some time after the writings of Ignatius of Antioch reveal a power structure formation involving a presbyterion under a monarchic episkopos. Even Ignatius (ca. C.E. or A.D. 106) forbad the eucharist to be celebrated by the laity. Therefore it naturally followed that, at some point a presbyter officiating at the eucharist would be regarded as acting in the role of a hiereus (Greek for Hebrew kohen). That spiritual fiction, or idealization, resulted in an early usage by which presbyteri would come to be regarded as supplying the function of hiereis. But that does not change my question.
Do you think that I have not read the etymological speculations on kohen?
The frequent English translation 'elder' of the lexeme presbyteros, where it really occurs, has a comparatived form, as do its alternatives, ee.g. 'older' or 'alder-' as in 'alderman', but almost never does it or its Greek orignal in the so-called LXX (OGr) or the so-called NT function grammatically as a true comparative, as in "x older than y."
Therefore I have rephrased my question.
I realize that 'first' introduces a historical negative, i.e. the assumption that there lurks no unknown predecessor, and therefore needs to be understood as optimal, not as an absolute.
As one possible avenue of investigation, let me suggest that forms of kohen occur a number of times in the Psalms. Link this with the fact that contrary to protestant fiction about the suppression of vernacular versions, the British Museum has medieval psalters containing vernacular versions. If I were again in London, I could see how they render kohen. But it is not a point for which I would pay for a trip or even copies of the manuscripts. Maybe I can see what's on hand at Chapel Hill or Duke when I next venture thither.
Regarding the use of the negated item to denote an item:
After reconsidering whether to accept 'antiphrasis' or to sustain my suggestion of 'enantiosis', futher investigation and reflection maks me want to withdraw 'enantiosis' and leave 'antiphrasis' as good enough. Some modern treatments of figurae Gorgianae might make one partial to enantiosis. Even though the original connotations of antiphrasis had less to do with irony than with apotropaic avoidance of the pejorative, I shall leave it in place. Ancient Greek originators usually had in mind, not depreciation (standard ancient import of eironeia 'irony'), but persuading a sea that was inhospitable (i.e. pontos axeinos 'hostile to visitors') to be hospitable by calling it hospitable (i.e. pontos euxeinos).
General Observation on Backing up Statements
Most assertions by anyone ought to be categorized as merely reputed information, unless it can be demonstrated. History should not be the only field that may be largely validly described as "lies agreed upon." Think of the equations involving chelates that were thought valid prior to the discovery of steric hindrance. To increase the credibility what one thinks, it had best be explained why one thinks it, that is, how one knows what one thinks one knows. An assertion itself may be almost or indeed unexceptionally believed by humans and yet not be demonstrable. At the same time, it seems practical to decide whether the percentage of readers who can and will trace the steps in an argument or explanation justifies the time and effort to think it through and cogently express it.
Possible Illustration regarding a Historical Generalization
A friend of mine once explained to me how he had traced Copernicus' mathematical demonstration in Latin of heliocentricity to an immediate Greek source and then traced that in turn to an Arabic manuscript found in Azerbaidjan. (This informant may have been about as well prepared as myself in Greco-Roman and medieval antiquity and he knew Arabic, which I do not know.) Since the steps in the recounted problem did match, or result in, the conclusion reached in the Arabic source, but not in the Latin of Copernicus, it seemed very likely that no mathematical demonstration of heliocentricity appeared in the West before Brahe and Kepler. If that be so, the facts do not fully warrent naming a heliocentric model a 'Copernican Revolution', unless we suppose that his having bright hunch that Aristarchus of Samos was correct, and then his plagiarizing his predecessors, deserves that accolade.