Hebrews 7:11 If indeed then perfection were through the Levitical priesthood ( for the people established law upon it,) what still need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchisedek, and not to be named according to the order of Aaron?

ABP_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 If G3303 indeed G3767 then G5050 perfection G1223 [²through G3588 ³the G* ⁴Levitical G2420 ⁵priesthood G1510.7.3 ¹ were] G3588 ( [²the G2992 ³people G1063 ¹for G1909 ⁵upon G1473 ⁶it G3549 ⁴established law],) G5100 what G2089 still G5532 need G2596 was there [⁴according to G3588 ⁵the G5010 ⁶order G* ⁷of Melchisedek G2087 ¹for another G450 ³to arise G2409 ²priest], G2532 and G3756 not G2596 [²according to G3588 ³the G5010 ⁴order G* ⁵of Aaron G3004 ¹to be named]?

ABP_GRK⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 ει G3303 μεν G3767 ούν G5050 τελείωσις G1223 διά G3588 της G* Λευϊτικής G2420 ιερωσύνης G1510.7.3 ην G3588 ο G2992 λαός G1063 γαρ G1909 επ΄ G1473 αυτή G3549 νενομοθέτητο G5100 τις G2089 έτι G5532 χρεία G2596 κατά G3588 την G5010 τάξιν G* Μελχισεδέκ G2087 έτερον G450 ανίστασθαι G2409 ιερέα G2532 και G3756 ου G2596 κατά G3588 την G5010 τάξιν G* Ααρών G3004 λέγεσθαι

Stephanus⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

LXX_WH⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 COND ει G3303 PRT μεν G3767 CONJ ουν G5050 N-NSF τελειωσις G1223 PREP δια G3588 T-GSF της G3020 A-GSF λευιτικης G2420 N-GSF ιερωσυνης G2258 [G5713] V-IXI-3S ην G3588 T-NSM ο G2992 N-NSM λαος G1063 CONJ γαρ G1909 PREP επ G846 P-GSF αυτης G3549 [G5769] V-RPI-3S νενομοθετηται G5101 I-NSF τις G2089 ADV ετι G5532 N-NSF χρεια G2596 PREP κατα G3588 T-ASF την G5010 N-ASF ταξιν G3198 N-PRI μελχισεδεκ G2087 A-ASM ετερον G450 [G5733] V-PMN ανιστασθαι G2409 N-ASM ιερεα G2532 CONJ και G3756 PRT-N ου G2596 PREP κατα G3588 T-ASF την G5010 N-ASF ταξιν G2 N-PRI ααρων G3004 [G5745] V-PPN λεγεσθαι

Tischendorf⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 COND Εἰ G3303 PRT μὲν G3767 CONJ οὖν G5050 N-NSF τελείωσις G1223 PREP διὰ G3588 T-GSF τῆς G3020 A-GSF Λευειτικῆς G2420 N-GSF ἱερωσύνης G1510 V-IAI-3S ἦν, G3588 T-NSM ὁ G2992 N-NSM λαὸς G1063 CONJ γὰρ G1909 PREP ἐπ' G846 P-GSF αὐτῆς G3549 V-RPI-3S νενομοθέτηται, G5101 I-NSF τίς G2089 ADV ἔτι G5532 N-NSF χρεία G2596 PREP κατὰ G3588 T-ASF τὴν G5010 N-ASF τάξιν G3198 N-PRI Μελχισεδὲκ G2087 A-ASM ἕτερον G450 V-PMN ἀνίστασθαι G2409 N-ASM ἱερέα G2532 CONJ καὶ G3756 PRT-N οὐ G2596 PREP κατὰ G3588 T-ASF τὴν G5010 N-ASF τάξιν G2 N-PRI Ἀαρὼν G3004 V-PPN λέγεσθαι;

Tregelles⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευϊτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, (ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται,) τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

TR⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 COND ει G3303 PRT μεν G3767 CONJ ουν G5050 N-NSF τελειωσις G1223 PREP δια G3588 T-GSF της G3020 A-GSF λευιτικης G2420 N-GSF ιερωσυνης G2258 (G5713) V-IXI-3S ην G3588 T-NSM ο G2992 N-NSM λαος G1063 CONJ γαρ G1909 PREP επ G846 P-DSF αυτη G3549 (G5718) V-LPI-3S νενομοθετητο G5101 I-NSF τις G2089 ADV ετι G5532 N-NSF χρεια G2596 PREP κατα G3588 T-ASF την G5010 N-ASF ταξιν G3198 N-PRI μελχισεδεκ G2087 A-ASM ετερον G450 (G5733) V-PMN ανιστασθαι G2409 N-ASM ιερεα G2532 CONJ και G3756 PRT-N ου G2596 PREP κατα G3588 T-ASF την G5010 N-ASF ταξιν G2 N-PRI ααρων G3004 (G5745) V-PPN λεγεσθαι

Nestle⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευειτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

SBLGNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ ⸀αὐτῆς ⸀νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

f35⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ει μεν ουν τελειωσις δια της λευιτικης ιερωσυνης ην ο λαος γαρ επ αυτη νενομοθετητο τις ετι χρεια κατα την ταξιν μελχισεδεκ ετερον ανιστασθαι ιερεα και ου κατα την ταξιν ααρων λεγεσθαι

IGNT⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 ει G3303 μεν If Indeed G3767 ουν Then G5050 τελειωσις Perfection G1223 δια By G3588 της The G3020 λευιτικης Levitical G2420 ιερωσυνης Priesthood G2258 (G5713) ην Were, G3588 ο G2992 λαος G1063 γαρ For The People " Based " G1909 επ Upon G846 αυτη It G3549 (G5718) νενομοθετητο Had Received "the" Law, G5101 τις What G2089 ετι Still G5532 χρεια Need " Was There " G2596 κατα According To G3588 την The G5010 ταξιν Order G3198 μελχισεδεκ Of Melchizedek "for" G2087 ετερον Another G450 (G5733) ανιστασθαι To Arise G2409 ιερεα Priest; G2532 και And G3756 ου Not G2596 κατα According G3588 την To The G5010 ταξιν Order G2 ααρων Of Aaron G3004 (G5745) λεγεσθαι To Be Named?

ACVI⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 COND ει If G3303 PRT μεν Indeed G3767 CONJ ουν Therefore G5050 N-NSF τελειωσις Perfection G2258 V-IXI-3S ην Was G1223 PREP δια Through G3588 T-GSF της Tha G3020 A-GSF λευιτικης Levitical G2420 N-GSF ιερωσυνης Priesthood G1063 CONJ γαρ For G1909 PREP επ Under G846 P-DSF αυτη It G3588 T-NSM ο Tho G2992 N-NSM λαος People G3549 V-LPI-3S νενομοθετητο Had Received Law G5101 I-NSF τις What? G2089 ADV ετι Further G5532 N-NSF χρεια Need G2087 A-ASM ετερον For Another G2409 N-ASM ιερεα Priest G450 V-PMN ανιστασθαι To Rise G2596 PREP κατα According To G3588 T-ASF την Tha G5010 N-ASF ταξιν Order G3198 N-PRI μελχισεδεκ Melchizadek G2532 CONJ και And G3756 PRT-N ου Not G3004 V-PPN λεγεσθαι Be Designated G2596 PREP κατα According To G3588 T-ASF την Tha G5010 N-ASF ταξιν Order G2 N-PRI ααρων Aaron

new⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 G3303 If G3767 therefore G5050 perfection G2258 [G5713] were G1223 by G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood, G1063 (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 the people G3549 [G5718] received the law,) G5101 what G2089 further G5532 need G2087 was there that another G2409 priest G450 [G5733] should rise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchizedek, G2532 and G3756 not G3004 [G5745] be called G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

Vulgate⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium leviticum erat populus enim sub ipso legem accepit quid adhuc necessarium secundum ordinem Melchisedech alium surgere sacerdotem et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici

Clementine_Vulgate⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Si ergo consummatio per sacerdotium Leviticum erat (populus enim sub ipso legem accepit) quid adhuc necessarium fuit secundum ordinem Melchisedech, alium surgere sacerdotem, et non secundum ordinem Aaron dici?

Wycliffe⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Therfor if perfeccioun was bi the preesthood of Leuy, for vndur hym the puple took the lawe, what yit was it nedeful, another preest to rise, bi the ordre of Melchisedech, and not to be seid bi the ordre of Aaron?

Tyndale⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the levites (for vnder that presthod the people recaved the lawe) what neded it furthermore that an other prest shuld ryse after the order of Melchisedech and not after the order of Aaron?

Coverdale⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Yf now therfore perfeccion came by the presthode of the Leuites (for vnder the same (presthode) the people receaued the lawe) what neded it then furthurmore, that another prest shulde ryse after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron?

MSTC⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If now therefore perfection came by the priesthood of the Levites — for under that priesthood the people received the law — what needed it furthermore that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchizedek, and not after the order of Aaron?

Matthew⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Yf nowe therfore perfeccyon came by the priesthode of the Leuytes (for vnder that presthode the people receyueth the lawe) what nedeth furthermore that another prieste shoulde aryse after the ordre of Melchisedech, and not after the ordre of Aaron?

Great⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If now therfore perfeccion came by the presthod of the Leuytes (for vnder that presthod the people receaued the lawe) what neded it furthermore, that another prest shuld ryse to be called after the order of Melchisedech, and not after the order of Aaron?

Geneva⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection had bene by the Priesthoode of the Leuites (for vnder it the Lawe was established to the people) what needed it furthermore, that another Priest should rise after the order of Melchi-sedec, and not to be called after the order of Aaron?

Bishops⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection was by the priesthood of ye Leuites (For vnder that priesthood the people receaued the law) what neded it furthermore that another priest shoulde rise after the order of Melchisedech, and not to be called after the order of Aaron

DouayRheims⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If then perfection was by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchisedech: and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

KJV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

KJV_Cambridge⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

KJV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 If G3303 G3767 therefore G5050 perfection G2258 were [G5713] G1223 by G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood G1063 , (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 the people G3549 received the law [G5718] G5101 ,) what G2089 further G5532 need G2087 was there that another G2409 priest G450 should rise [G5733] G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchisedec G2532 , and G3756 not G3004 be called [G5745] G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

Mace⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore the Levitical priesthood, concerning which the people received a law, could have given perfection, what further need was there that another priest should rise, to be named after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron?

Whiston⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the law, what further need that another priest should rise after the order Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Wesley⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what farther need was there that another priest should rise, after the order of Melchisedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Worsley⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law) what farther need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not after the order of Aaron?

Haweis⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore there was perfection by the Levitical priesthood (for under that the people had the law given to them), what farther need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Thomson⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Again, if perfectness had been by the Levitical priesthood [for it was for this that the people received the law] what further need was there of saying that another priest should be raised up after the order of Melchisedek, and not after the order of Aaron?

Webster⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Webster_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 G3303 If G3767 therefore G5050 perfection G2258 [G5713] were G1223 by G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood G1063 , (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 the people G3549 [G5718] received the law G5101 ,) what G2089 further G5532 need G2087 was there that another G2409 priest G450 [G5733] should rise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchizedek G2532 , and G3756 not G3004 [G5745] be called G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

Living_Oracles⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Moreover, if, indeed, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood, (for with it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should arise, according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?

Etheridge⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, therefore, Perfection [Or, the consummation.] were to be through the priesthood of the Levoyee, by which the law has been put upon the people, why was there another Priest required, who should arise in the resemblance of Malki-Zedek? For he had said, In the likeness of Aharun he shall be.

Murdock⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, therefore, perfection had been by means of the priesthood of the Levites, in which the law was enjoined on the people; why was another priest required, who should stand up after the likeness of Melchisedec? For it should have said, He shall be after the likeness of Aaron.

Sawyer⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ^(2:8) If therefore there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood,—for the people received the law under it,—what need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchisedec and not to be called after the order of Aaron?

Diaglott⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed then perfection through the Levitical priesthood was; (the people for with her law had received;) what yet need, according to the order of Melchizedek another to arise a priest, and not according to the order of Aaron to be named?

ABU⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there that a different priest should arise, after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Anderson⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, then, there had been a perfect expiation by means of the Levitical priesthood, (for with reference to it, the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should be raised up after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

Noyes⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed perfection had been by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people hath received the Law,) what further need was there that a different priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called alter the order of Aaron?

YLT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood—for the people under it had received law—what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

JuliaSmith⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If truly therefore completion were by the Levitical priesthood, (for the people received legislation by it,) what further need according to the order of Melchisedec for another priest to be raised, and not according to the order of Aaron?

Darby⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed then perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, for the people had their law given to them in connexion with *it*, what need [was there] still that a different priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedec, and not be named after the order of Aaron?

ERV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

ASV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it hath the people received the law), what further need [was there] that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

ASV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 Now if G3767 there G3303 was G5050 perfection G2258 G1223 through G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood G1063 (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 hath the people G3549 received the law), G5101 what G2089 further G5532 need G450 was there that G2087 another G2409 priest G450 should arise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchizedek, G2532 and G3756 not G3004 be reckoned G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

JPS_ASV_Byz⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned after the order of Aaron?

Rotherham⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed, therefore, there had been, a perfecting through means of the Levitical priesthood,––for, the people, thereon, have had based a code of laws, what further need, according to the rank of Melchizedek, for a different priest to be raised up, and, not according to the rank of Aaron, to be designated?

Twentieth_Century⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, then, Perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood--and it was under this priesthood that the people received the Law--why was it still necessary that a priest of a different order should appear, a priest of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

Godbey⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Then indeed if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for unto it the people have been tithed, what need is there still that another priest shall rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

WNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if the crowning blessing was attainable by means of the Levitical priesthood--for as resting on this foundation the people received the Law, to which they are still subject-- what further need was there for a Priest of a different kind to be raised up belonging to the order of Melchizedek instead of being said to belong to the order of Aaron?

Worrell⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, therefore, there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there, that another Priest should arise according to the rank of Melchizedek, and not be reckoned according to the rank of Aaron?

Moffatt⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Further, if the Levitical priesthood had been the means of reaching perfection (for it was on the basis of that priesthood that the Law was enacted for the People), why was it still necessary for another sort of priest to emerge with the rank of Melchizedek, instead of simply with the rank of Aaron

Goodspeed⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if anything final had been really accomplished through the Levitical priesthood, for even the giving of the Law was based upon it, what further need would there have been of appointing a different priest of the priesthood of Melchizedek, instead of choosing one of the priesthood of Aaron?

Riverside⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, then, perfection had been through the Levitical priesthood, — for on the basis of that the people received the Law — what need was there for another kind of priest to arise and not be called of the order of Aaron?

MNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if there were perfection through the Levitical priesthood, (and it was under it that the people received the Law) why was it still necessary for another kind of priest to arise, after the order of Melchizedek, instead of being reckoned according to the order of Aaron?

Lamsa⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection had been reached by the Le-vitÆic-al priesthood, by which the law was enacted for the people, what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Mel-chisÆe-dec? Otherwise, the scriptures would have said, that he would be after the order of Aaron.

CLV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If, indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for the people have been placed under law with it), what need is there still for a different priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not said to be according to the order of Aaron?

Williams⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection had been reached through the Levitical priesthood -- for on it as a basis even the law was enacted for the people-- what further need would there have been of appointing a different priest, with the rank of Melchizedek, instead of designating one with the rank of Aaron?

BBE⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if it was possible for things to be made complete through the priests of the house of Levi for the law was given to the people in connection with them, what need was there for another priest who was of the order of Melchizedek and not of the order of Aaron?

MKJV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Therefore if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the Law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

LITV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Truly, then, if perfection was through the Levitical priestly office (for the people had been given Law under it), why yet need for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

ECB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ So indeed, if completion/shalom were through the Levitical priesthood, - for under it the people set the torah - what need was still there that another priest rise after the order of Malki Sedeq and not worded after the order of Aharon?

AUV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ So, if perfection [i.e., a right relationship with God] could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood, (for under it people had received the law of Moses), what further need would there have been for another priest to arise, according to the order of Melchizedek, who was not considered “according to the order of Aaron”?

ACV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed therefore perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people had received the law), what further need is there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?

Common⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection could have been through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not one designated according to the order of Aaron?

WEB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

WEB_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 Now if G3767 there G3303 were G5050 perfection G2258 G1223 through G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood G1063 (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 the people G3549 have received the law), G5101 what G2089 further G5532 need G450 was there for G2087 another G2409 priest G450 to arise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchizedek, G2532 and G3756 not G3004 be called G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

NHEB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if there was perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

AKJV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

AKJV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 If G3767 therefore G5050 perfection G3020 were by the Levitical G2420 priesthood, G1909 (for under G2992 it the people G3549 received G3549 the law, G5101 ) what G2089 further G5532 need G2087 was there that another G2409 priest G450 should rise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchisedec, G3004 and not be called G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

KJC⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

KJ2000⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchizedek, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

UKJV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?

RKJNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Therefore, if perfection was from the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there for another priest to arise, in the order of Melchizedek, and not in the order of Aaron?

CKJV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 If G3303 therefore G3767 G5050 perfection G2258 were G1223 by G3020 the Levitical G2420 priesthood, G1063 (for G1909 under G846 it G2992 the people G3549 received the law,) G5101 what G2089 further G5532 need G450 was there that G2087 another G2409 priest G450 should rise G2596 after G5010 the order G3198 of Melchizedek, G2532 and G3756 not G3004 be called G2596 after G5010 the order G2 of Aaron?

RYLT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood -- for the people under it had received law -- what further need, according to the order of Melchisedek, for another priest to arise, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

EJ2000⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ¶ If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec and not be called after the order of Aaron?

CAB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people have received the law), why is there yet a need for another priest to rise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

WPNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now then, if there could be perfection through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people had received the Law), what further need would there be for a different kind of priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, rather than being called according to the order of Aaron?

JMNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If indeed, then, attainment of the goal (or: completion; perfection; maturity; the finished product and destiny) was, and continued being, through the Levitical priesthood – for based upon it the people have been placed under Law [= Torah] and set in a custom – what need [is there] still [for] a different [kind or line of] priest to be raising Himself up, down from (in accord with and in the line of succession of) the station (order; placement; appointment) of Melchizedek, and not normally said to be down from (in accord with and in the line of succession of) the station (order) of Aaron?

NSB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ If perfection had been attainable through the Levitical priesthood, for under it the people received the Law, what further need would there have been for another priest to arise after the order of Melchizedek, instead of one named after the order of Aaron?

ISV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood—for on this basis the people received the Law—what further need would there be to speak of appointing another kind of priest according to the order of Melchizedek, not one according to the order of Aaron?

LEB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Thus if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood, for on the basis of it the people received the law, what further need is there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek and not said to be according to the order of Aaron?

BGB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Εἰ μὲν οὖν τελείωσις διὰ τῆς Λευιτικῆς ἱερωσύνης ἦν, ὁ λαὸς γὰρ ἐπ’ αὐτῆς νενομοθέτηται, τίς ἔτι χρεία κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισέδεκ ἕτερον ἀνίστασθαι ἱερέα καὶ οὐ κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Ἀαρὼν λέγεσθαι;

BIB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Εἰ (If) μὲν (indeed) οὖν (then) τελείωσις (perfection) διὰ (by) τῆς (the) Λευιτικῆς (Levitical) ἱερωσύνης (priesthood) ἦν (were)— ὁ (the) λαὸς (people) γὰρ (for) ἐπ’ (upon) αὐτῆς (it) νενομοθέτηται (had received the Law)— τίς (what) ἔτι (still) χρεία (need was there), κατὰ (according to) τὴν (the) τάξιν (order) Μελχισέδεκ (of Melchizedek), ἕτερον (for another) ἀνίστασθαι (to arise) ἱερέα (priest) καὶ (and) οὐ (not) κατὰ (according to) τὴν (the) τάξιν (order) Ἀαρὼν (of Aaron) λέγεσθαι (to be named)?

BLB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Then indeed, if perfection were by the Levitical priesthood (for upon it the people had received the Law) what need was there still for another priest to arise, according to the order of Melchizedek, and not to be named according to the order of Aaron?

BSB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

MSB⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on this basis the people received the law), why was there still need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

MLV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Therefore, if there indeed was completion through the Levitical priesthood (for the people had the law instituted upon it), what need was there still for a different priest to rise up according to the order of Melchizedek and not to be called according to the order of Aaron?

VIN⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Now if perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (upon which basis the people received the Law), why was there still a need for another priest to appear—one in the order of Melchizedek and not in the order of Aaron?

Luther1545⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ist nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen (denn unter demselbigen hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), was ist denn weiter not zu sagen, daß ein anderer Priester aufkommen solle nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons?

Luther1545_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G3303 Ist G3767 nun G846 die G5050 Vollkommenheit G1223 durch G1909 das G3020 levitische G2420 Priestertum G1063 geschehen [denn G450 unter demselbigen hat G2992 das Volk G3549 das Gesetz empfangen G5101 ], was G2258 ist G2089 denn weiter G5532 not G3004 zu sagen G2087 , daß ein anderer G2409 Priester G2596 aufkommen solle nach G5010 der Ordnung G3198 Melchisedeks G2532 und G3756 nicht G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G2 Aarons ?

Luther1912⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ist nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum geschehen [denn unter demselben hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen], was ist denn weiter not zu sagen, daß ein anderer Priester aufkommen solle nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons?

Luther1912_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 G3303 Ist G3767 nun G5050 die Vollkommenheit G1223 durch G3020 das levitische G2420 Priestertum G2258 geschehen G1063 [denn G1909 unter G846 demselben G2992 hat das Volk G3549 das Gesetz G3549 empfangen G5101 , was G2089 ist denn weiter G5532 not G2087 zu sagen, daß G2087 ein anderer G2409 Priester G450 aufkommen G2596 solle nach G5010 der Ordnung G3198 Melchisedeks G2532 und G3756 G3004 nicht G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G2 Aarons ?

ELB1871⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Wenn nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum wäre (denn in Verbindung mit demselben hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen), welches Bedürfnis war noch vorhanden, daß ein anderer Priester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks aufstehe, und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons genannt werde?

ELB1871_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 G3303 Wenn G3767 nun G5050 die Vollkommenheit G1223 durch G3020 das levitische G2420 Priestertum G2258 wäre G1063 [denn G1909 in Verbindung mit G846 demselben G3549 hat G2992 das Volk G3549 das Gesetz empfangen] G5101 , welches G5532 Bedürfnis G2089 war noch G2087 vorhanden, daß ein anderer G2409 Priester G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G3198 Melchisedeks G450 aufstehe, G2532 und G3756 nicht G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G2 Aarons G3004 genannt werde?

ELB1905⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Wenn nun die Vollkommenheit durch das levitische Priestertum wäre [denn in Verbindung mit demselben O. gegründet auf dasselbe hat das Volk das Gesetz empfangen], welches Bedürfnis war noch vorhanden, daß ein anderer Priester nach der Ordnung Melchisedeks aufstehe, und nicht nach der Ordnung Aarons genannt werde?

ELB1905_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 -G3303 Wenn G3767 nun G5050 die Vollkommenheit G1223 durch G3020 das levitische G2420 Priestertum G2258 wäre G1063 [ denn G1909 in Verbindung mit G846 demselben G3549 hat G2992 das Volk G3549 das Gesetz empfangen G5101 ] welches G5532 Bedürfnis G2089 war noch G2087 vorhanden, daß ein anderer G2409 Priester G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G3198 Melchisedeks G450 aufstehe G2532 , und G3756 nicht G2596 nach G5010 der Ordnung G2 Aarons G3004 genannt werde?

DSV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Indien dan nu de volkomenheid door het Levietische priesterschap ware (want onder hetzelve heeft het volk de wet ontvangen), wat nood was het nog, dat een ander priester naar de ordening van Melchizedek zou opstaan, en die niet zou gezegd worden te zijn naar de ordening van Aäron?

DSV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 Indien G3767 dan G3303 nu G5050 de volkomenheid G1223 door G3020 het Levietische G2420 priesterschap G2258 G5713 ware G1063 (want G1909 onder G846 hetzelve G2992 heeft het volk G3549 G5718 de wet ontvangen G5101 ), wat G5532 nood G2089 was het nog G2087 , dat een ander G2409 priester G2596 naar G5010 de ordening G3198 van Melchizedek G450 G5733 zou opstaan G2532 , en G3756 die niet G3004 G5745 zou gezegd worden G2596 te zijn naar G5010 de ordening G2 van Aaron?

DarbyFR⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹
Si donc la perfection était par la sacrificature lévitique, (car c'est en relation avec elle que le peuple a reçu sa loi,) quel besoin était-il encore qu'un autre sacrificateur se levât selon l'ordre de Melchisédec et qui ne fût pas nommé selon l'ordre d'Aaron?

Martin⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Si donc la perfection s'était trouvée dans la sacrificature Lévitique, (car c'est sous elle que le peuple a reçu la Loi) quel besoin était-il après cela qu'un autre Sacrificateur se levât selon l'ordre de Melchisédec, et qui ne fût point dit selon l'ordre d'Aaron.

Segond⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Si donc la perfection avait été possible par le sacerdoce Lévitique, -car c'est sur ce sacerdoce que repose la loi donnée au peuple, -qu'était-il encore besoin qu'il parût un autre sacrificateur selon l'ordre de Melchisédek, et non selon l'ordre d'Aaron?

Segond_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G1487 ¶ Si G3303 G3767 donc G5050 la perfection G2258 avait été G5713 G1223 possible par G2420 le sacerdoce G3020 Lévitique G1063 , — car G1909 c’est sur G846 ce sacerdoce G3549 que repose la loi donnée G5718 G2992 au peuple G5101 , — qu’était-il G2089 encore G5532 besoin G450 qu’il parût G5733 G2087 un autre G2409 sacrificateur G2596 selon G5010 l’ordre G3198 de Melchisédek G2532 , et G3756 non G3004 G5745 G2596 selon G5010 l’ordre G2 d’Aaron ?

SE⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Pues si la perfección era por el sacerdocio levítico (porque bajo él recibió el pueblo la Ley) ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y que no fuese llamado según el orden de Aarón?

ReinaValera⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Si pues la perfección era por el sacerdocio Levítico (porque debajo de él recibio el pueblo la ley) ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantase otro sacerdote según el orden de Melchîsedec, y que no fuese llamado según el orden de Aarón?

JBS⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ¶ Pues si la perfección era por el sacerdocio levítico (porque bajo él recibió el pueblo la Ley) ¿qué necesidad había aún de que se levantara otro sacerdote según el orden de Melquisedec, y que no fuera llamado según el orden de Aarón?

Albanian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Sepse ai për të cilin bëhet fjalë i përket një fisi tjetër, prej të cilit askush nuk i ka shërbyer ndonjëherë altarit;

RST⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Итак, если бы совершенство достигалось посредством левитского священства, – ибо с ним сопряжен закон народа, – то какая бы еще нужда была восставать иному священнику по чину Мелхиседека, а не по чину Аарона именоваться?

Peshitta⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ ܐܠܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܓܡܝܪܘܬܐ ܒܝܕ ܟܘܡܪܘܬܐ ܕܠܘܝܐ ܐܝܬܝܗ ܗܘܬ ܕܒܗ ܤܝV ܢܡܘܤܐ ܠܥܡܐ ܠܡܢܐ ܡܬܒܥܐ ܗܘܐ ܟܘܡܪܐ ܐܚܪܢܐ ܕܢܩܘV ܒܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܡܠܟܝܙܕܩ ܐܡܪ ܕܝܢ ܕܒܕܡܘܬܗ ܕܐܗܪܘܢ ܢܗܘܐ ܀

Arabic⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ فلو كان بالكهنوت اللاوي كمال. اذ الشعب اخذ الناموس عليه. ماذا كانت الحاجة بعد الى ان يقوم كاهن آخر على رتبة ملكي صادق ولا يقال على رتبة هرون.

Amharic⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ እንግዲህ ህዝቡ በሌዊ ክህነት የተመሠረተን ሕግ ተቀብለዋልና በዚያ ክህነት ፍጹምነት የተገኘ ቢሆን፥ እንደ አሮን ሹመት የማይቈጠር፥ እንደ መልከ ጼዴቅ ሹመት ግን የሆነ ሌላ ካህን ሊነሳ ወደፊት ስለ ምን ያስፈልጋል?

Armenian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ուրեմն, եթէ կատարելութիւնը Ղեւտացիներու քահանայութեամբ ըլլար, (քանի որ ժողովուրդը Օրէնքին տակ դրուեցաւ անոր ատենը,) ա՛լ ի՞նչ պէտք կար որ ուրի՛շ քահանայ մը ելլէր՝ Մելքիսեդեկի կարգին համեմատ, եւ չկոչուէր Ահարոնի կարգին համեմատ:

Basque⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Beraz baldin perfectionea Sacrificadoregoa Leuiticoan içan baliz (ecen populuac Leguea haren azpian recebitu vkan du) cer behar cen goitiric berce Sacrificadorebat Melchisedech-en façoinera altcha ledin, eta ezladin Aaronen façoinera erran?

Bulgarian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ И така, ако можеше да има съвършенство чрез левитското свещенство – защото под него народът получи закона – каква нужда е имало още да се издига друг свещеник, според Мелхиседековия чин, и да не се определя такъв според Аароновия чин?

Croatian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Da se dakle savršenstvo postiglo po levitskom svećeništvu - jer na temelju njega narod je dobio Zakon - koja bi onda bila potreba da se po redu Melkisedekovu postavi drugi svećenik i da se ne imenuje po redu Aronovu?

BKR⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ A protož byla-liť dokonalost spasení skrze Levítské kněžství, (nebo za toho kněžství vydán jest lidu Zákon,) jakáž toho byla potřeba, aby jiný kněz podle řádu Melchisedechova povstal, a nebyl již více podle řádu Aronova jmenován?

Danish⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Hvis der altsaa var Fuldkommelse ved det levitiske Præstedømme, (thi til dette var Folket lovbundet,) hvi gjordes det da ydermere behov, at en anden Præst skulde opstaae efter Melchisedeks Viis og ikke benævnes efter Aarons Viis?

CUV⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ 從前百姓在利未人祭司職任以下受律法，倘若藉這職任能得完全，又何用另外興起一位祭司，照麥基洗德的等次，不照亞倫的等次呢？

CUV_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G2992 從前百姓 G3020 在利未人 G2420 祭司職任 G1909 以下 G3549 受律法 G3767 ，倘 G1487 G3303 若 G1223 藉 G2258 這職任能得 G5050 完全 G2089 ，又 G5101 何 G5532 用 G2087 另外 G450 興起 G2409 一位祭司 G2596 ，照 G3198 麥基洗德 G5010 的等次 G3756 ，不 G2596 照 G2 亞倫 G5010 的等次呢？

CUVS⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ 从前百姓在利未人祭司职任以下受律法，倘若藉这职任能得完全，又何用另外兴起一位祭司，照麦基洗德的等次，不照亚伦的等次呢？

CUVS_Strongs⁽ⁱ⁾

11 G2992 从前百姓 G3020 在利未人 G2420 祭司职任 G1909 以下 G3549 受律法 G3767 ，倘 G1487 G3303 若 G1223 藉 G2258 这职任能得 G5050 完全 G2089 ，又 G5101 何 G5532 用 G2087 另外 G450 兴起 G2409 一位祭司 G2596 ，照 G3198 麦基洗德 G5010 的等次 G3756 ，不 G2596 照 G2 亚伦 G5010 的等次呢？

Esperanto⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Tial, se ekzistis perfekteco per la Levida pastreco (cxar sub gxi la popolo ricevis la legxon), kia plua bezono estis, ke levigxu alia pastro laux la maniero de Melkicedek, kaj ne estu nomata laux la maniero de Aaron?

Estonian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Kui nüüd täiuslikkus oleks leviitide preestriameti kaudu olnud saavutatud - sest sellele on rajatud rahva käsuõpetus - mis vajadust siis veel oli, et teistsugune preester tõusis Melkisedeki korra järgi ega nimetatud teda Aaroni korra järgi?

Finnish⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Sentähden, jos täydellisyys on Levin pappeuden kautta tapahtunut; (sillä sen alla on kansa lain saanut,) mitä sitte oli tarvetta sanoa, että toinen pappi oli Melkisedekin säädyn jälkeen tuleva, ja ei Aaronin säädyn jälkeen?

FinnishPR⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Jos siis täydellisyys olisi saavutettu leeviläisen pappeuden kautta, sillä tähän on kansa laissa sidottu, miksi sitten oli tarpeen, että nousi toinen pappi Melkisedekin järjestyksen mukaan eikä tullut nimitetyksi Aaronin järjestyksen mukaan?

Haitian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Se sou baz travay prèt ras Levi yo Bondye te bay pèp Izrayèl la lalwa Moyiz la. Si travay prèt ras Levi yo te yon travay ki te bon nèt, pa ta gen nesesite menm pou yon lòt prèt ki menm jan ak Mèlkisedèk men ki pa menm jan ak Arawon ta vini.

Hungarian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ha tehát a lévitai papság által volna a tökéletesség (mert a nép ez alatt nyerte a törvényt): mi szükség tovább is mondogatni, hogy más pap támadjon a Melkisédek rendje szerint és ne az Áron rendje szerint?

Indonesian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Di bawah pimpinan imam-imam Lewi, hukum agama Yahudi diberikan kepada umat Israel. Karena imam-imam Lewi dahulu itu tidak dapat melakukan dengan sempurna apa yang harus dikerjakannya, maka harus ada imam lain, yaitu yang seperti Imam Melkisedek, dan bukan dari golongan Imam Harun lagi!

Italian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Se adunque la perfezione era per il sacerdozio levitico poichè in su quello fu data la legge al popolo, che era egli più bisogno che sorgesse un altro sacerdote secondo l’ordine di Melchisedec, e che non fosse nominato secondo l’ordine d’Aaronne?

ItalianRiveduta⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ora, se la perfezione fosse stata possibile per mezzo del sacerdozio levitico (perché su quello è basata la legge data al popolo), che bisogno c’era ancora che sorgesse un altro sacerdote secondo l’ordine di Melchisedec e non scelto secondo l’ordine d’Aronne?

Japanese⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ もしレビの系なる祭司によりて全うせらるる事ありしならば（民は之によりて律法を受けたり）何ぞなほ他にアロンの位に等しからぬメルキゼデクの位に等しき祭司の起る必要あらんや。

Kabyle⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ccɣel i xeddmen lmuqedmin n at Lewwi, d lsas n ccariɛa yețțunefken i wegdud n wat Isṛail; meɛna lemmer yennekmal ccɣel-agi, acuɣeṛ ihi ara d-yili lmuqeddem nniḍen am Malxisadeq mačči am Haṛun n at Lewwi ?

Korean⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ 레위 계통의 제사 직분으로 말미암아 온전함을 얻을 수 있었으면 백성이 그 아래서 율법을 받았으니 어찌하여 아론의 반차를 좇지 않고 멜기세덱의 반차를 좇는 별다른 한 제사장을 세울 필요가 있느뇨

Latvian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Ja jau Levi priesterība (jo tauta tās laikā saņēma likumu) būtu nesusi pilnību, kāda vēl bija vajadzība celties citam priesterim saskaņā ar Melhizedeka iekārtu un nesaukties pēc Ārona iekārtas?

Lithuanian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Jeigu tobulumas būtų buvęs pasiekiamas levitų kunigystės dėka,o tauta jos pagrindu buvo gavusi įstatymą,tai kam dar būtų reikėję iškilti kitam kunigui Melchizedeko būdu ir nesivadinti kunigu Aarono būdu?

PBG⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ A przetoż byłali doskonałość przez kapłaństwo lewickie, (gdyż za niego wydany jest zakon ludowi), jakaż tego jeszcze była potrzeba, aby inszy kapłan według porządku Melchisedekowego powstał, a nie był według porządku Aaronowego mianowany?

Portuguese⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ De sorte que, se a perfeição fosse pelo sacerdócio levítico (pois sob este o povo recebeu a lei), que necessidade havia ainda de que outro sacerdote se levantasse, segundo a ordem de Melquisedeque, e que não fosse contado segundo a ordem de Arão?

Norwegian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Var det da fullkommenhet å vinne ved det levittiske prestedømme - for dette var folket bundet til ved loven - hvad trang hadde det da vært til at en annen prest skulde opstå efter Melkisedeks vis og ikke nevnes efter Arons vis?

Romanian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Dacă, dar, desăvîrşirea ar fi fost cu putinţă prin preoţia Leviţilor, -căci supt preoţia aceasta a primit poporul Legea-ce nevoie mai era să se ridice un alt preot,,după rînduiala lui Melhisedec``, şi nu după rînduiala lui Aaron?

Ukrainian⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Отож, коли б досконалість була через священство левитське, бо люди Закона одержали з ним, то яка ще потреба була, щоб Інший Священик повстав за чином Мелхиседековим, а не зватися за чином Аароновим?

UkrainianNT⁽ⁱ⁾ ¹¹ Коли ж звершеннє було через Левійське сьвященствб (бо під ним люде озаконені стались), то яка ж іще потреба иншому встати сьвященикові по чину Мелхиседековому, а не по чину Аароновому звати ся?