The words of this verse are reordered in Good News Translation so that cereal is represented by “grain” later on in the verse, and the expressions cereal offering and first fruits are not repeated as in Revised Standard Version. This produces a shorter and clearer sentence that should probably be followed in other dynamic translations.

First fruits: this is the more technical term for the first grain gathered at the beginning of the harvest period. But the meaning is essentially the same as the word translated “first fruits” in verse 12.

Crushed new grain from fresh ears, parched with fire: the text is difficult and may be understood in two different ways. Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible give the impression that there were two possible kinds of offerings—either roasted grain or ground meal. Revised Standard Version and most other versions seem to indicate that only one kind of offering was involved—meal from fresh grain that is first roasted and then ground or pounded. Either interpretation is acceptable.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

This verse is essentially the same as 1b above. However, the subject in this case is second person singular in keeping with the section beginning at verse 13. In verse 1, however, it is third person singular and refers to “anyone.”

Note that the final clause, it is a cereal offering, has been omitted by Good News Translation as being redundant. But in many languages such repetition may be quite natural and should be retained.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The structure of Revised Standard Version, roughly following the Hebrew (which actually has four “ifs”), is awkward because of the repetition of the word if. The first If is similar to the one in 1.3 marking the contrast between the whole burnt offering of chapter 1 and the fellowship offering in this chapter. It is better translated in many languages as “when,” since it is assumed that the sacrifice will be made. The second if corresponds to the one in 3.6, which contrasts the offering of a larger animal with the presentation of a smaller animal. In most cases it will be wise to do something like Good News Translation at this point and say “When a person offers…” or “In the case that someone offers….” Another possibility is to use if in the first case but omit it in the second: “If the offering is to restore fellowship and the animal brought is a bull or a cow, then it must be without any defect at all….”

Notice also that the Revised Standard Version rendering of this verse contains two occurrences of both the noun offering and the verb offer. The reproduction of the form of Revised Standard Version in this verse will probably be considered quite unnatural in most languages. In most cases this repetition can easily be reduced as in Good News Translation.

From the herd: the Good News Translation rendering, “a bull or a cow,” contains both the idea of herd and male or female. On the meaning of herd see 1.2.

Without blemish: see 1.3 as well as the text of 22.17-25.

Before the LORD: this part has been left implicit in Good News Translation, and it may be more natural to do so in some other languages. See also 1.3.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He: the pronoun is better translated by the noun phrase “The man” in order to avoid any confusion. Otherwise it might be understood that the priest is to place his hand on the head of the animal. See 1.4.

Upon the head of his offering: that is, on the head of the animal which he has brought. See 1.4.

Kill: or better, “slaughter” or “cut the throat.” See 1.5.

At the door of the tent of meeting: that is, somewhere near the altar. Compare 1.5. See also the diagram of the Tent of the LORD’s presence on the last page of the introduction, “Translating Leviticus.”

Aaron’s sons the priests: see 1.5. In some languages it may be advisable to leave implicit the mention of Aaron’s sons at this point and say simply “the priests.”

Round about: see 1.5, 11.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

He: again this pronoun refers to the lay person offering the sacrifice and not to the priest. This should be clear to both the reader and the hearer.

Good News Translation adds the words “the following parts” to introduce the list which begins in this verse and continues in verse 4. This kind of addition may be helpful in other languages. Compare also verse 9.

The peace offering: these words are left implicit in Good News Translation since they have already been mentioned in the Section Heading and in the first verse of this chapter. This also serves to reduce the redundancy found in Revised Standard Version.

An offering by fire: the term is translated as “food offering” by Good News Translation and New English Bible. See 1.9 as well as the table “The Sacrifices in Leviticus,” with its discussion, in the introduction, “Translating Leviticus.”

The fat covering the entrails and all the fat that is on the entrails: the fat is considered the choicest part of the animal (see Gen 45.18; Psa 63.5) and was therefore to be offered to the LORD. A literal translation, following the wording of Revised Standard Version, seems unnecessarily repetitious in many languages and may be shortened as in Good News Translation without losing any of the meaning.

Entrails: the stomach and intestines as in 1.9. The Good News Translation rendering “the internal organs” is probably too general and should be avoided.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

Verses 4-8a concern three (or perhaps four) ways of preparing and presenting the grain offering: two kinds of bread baked in an oven (verse 4); bread cooked on a griddle (verses 5-6); and bread cooked in a pan (verse 7). The unity of these verses is marked in Hebrew by the fact that the second person singular pronoun is used throughout the section, whereas the second person plural appears in verses 11-12. This is not evident in English translations, since the singular and plural pronouns are identical. If the use of the second person singular pronoun in the receptor language is taken as referring to one individual, then it is probably better to use the plural or some kind of impersonal construction, such as “someone,” throughout.

Baked in the oven: the oven was either a kind of hole dug in the earth or a hollow round object made of baked clay and placed on the ground. A fire is made under this object, and when it is well heated, the dough is inserted through the top opening and placed against the inner walls in order to cook it. Some languages may have to say something like “cooked in a hot enclosure” or “made into bread by a hot box.” Note that the use of a loanword may imply a modern electric or gas oven and should be avoided.

Cakes … wafers: scholars are not certain as to the exact makeup and means of preparation of these kinds of bread. The first was probably a circular loaf placed on a stick (compare 26.26). In most languages the use of the term for cakes will be quite misleading if used for either term. The second term indicates something more like a kind of flat biscuit which is still eaten in the Near East today. The translator should use two rather general terms, but it is important that they designate kinds of bread that are made without yeast. In most cultures there is a way to distinguish between thicker, loaf-type bread and a flatter bread like a biscuit. Possible models are “thick bread and flat bread” or “soft bread and hard bread.”

Mixed with oil: more accurately “kneaded in oil.” If the translator wants to keep the verb “knead,” it is better to make the direct object “flour” (compare verse 5) rather than cakes.

Unleavened: in translating the idea unleavened or “without yeast,” some languages have had to say something like “lacking that which causes it [bread] to rise.”

Spread with oil: or “brushed,” “smeared,” “coated” with oil.

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .

The two kidneys: in some languages it is unnecessary and even surprising to use the number two in this context, since this is implicit in the word kidneys. It may be common knowledge in the receptor language that an animal normally has two kidneys. In other languages it may be advisable to say “both kidneys” in order to make it clear that not just one is used.

At the loins: this may also be considered redundant in some languages since the location of the kidneys will also be well known. This refers to that part of the body on either side of the backbone between the ribs and the hipbone. New English Bible renders this expression “beside the haunches.”

The appendage of the liver: among certain neighboring tribes of the Israelites, the liver was used in divination rites. Possibly this is why Jewish legislation required that it be burned. But it is also true that, like the fat, this particular part of the liver referred to as the appendage was considered a delicacy and was therefore appropriate to be set aside for God. In many languages it is best to render it as “the choicest part of the liver,” since that will probably communicate the meaning better than the name of a particular part of the organ.

Which he shall take away with the kidneys: this phrase provides additional information which may be left implicit in some languages because it is repetitious. The verb take away in Revised Standard Version is misleading. The meaning is “remove” (New English Bible).

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .