Aaron’s sons: for the sake of clarity and naturalness, it may be better to say simply “The priests” as in Good News Translation. See 1.5, 7, 8.

It: the singular pronoun in Revised Standard Version reflects a singular in the original, but the Hebrew pronoun clearly refers to all the items listed in verses 3-4. The translation should therefore reflect this fact. New Jerusalem Bible has “these,” and New American Bible, like Good News Translation, translates “all this.”

Upon the burnt offering: the preposition upon is misleading. It should be translated “with” (New Jerusalem Bible and New American Bible), “along with” (Good News Translation), or “in addition to” (New Jerusalem Bible). These were to be burned along with the offerings presented to God each morning. Compare Exodus 29.38-42.

Which is upon the wood on the fire: this information has been left implicit in Good News Translation. This may also be done in many other languages, since “burnt offerings” implies wood and fire. See 1.8.

An offering by fire: or “food offering” as in Good News Translation and New English Bible; see 1.9 and the introductory discussion.

Pleasing odor …: see 1.9.

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 .

You shall break it in pieces: the future tense here has an imperative meaning. The exact significance of this part of the ritual is uncertain, but perhaps it is intended to correspond to 1.6, where the animal sacrifice is cut into pieces. It may be possible in some languages to leave the subject impersonal, but otherwise the subject pronoun you may be rendered “the person making the offering.”

Pour oil on it: in some cases it may be wise to say something like “pour more oil on it” in order to make it clear that this is the second time oil is used in this ritual.

It is a cereal offering: this information may seem unnecessary or repetitious in some languages. But the intention of the writer was probably to mark the end of the paragraph on grain offerings of this type. It may be translated as a kind of summary statement: “This is the way a person offers this kind of grain offering.”

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 6-11 describe the sacrifice of a sheep as a fellowship offering and therefore constitute a separate paragraph. Verse 6 deals with the smaller animals, but it corresponds to verse 1 above, where the instructions concern the larger animals offered in sacrifice.

From the flock: the expression used here implies a sheep or a goat, and this has been made explicit in Good News Translation. See 1.2, 10.

Without blemish: see 1.3; 3.1. In some languages it may be necessary to make it clear that these words are intended to qualify the animal brought as a sacrifice rather than the worshiper who offers it.

To the LORD: this has been left implicit in Good News Translation, since the act of making an offering in this context implies God as the object of worship. But in some languages it will serve to provide emphasis as to the special character of the offering.

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 .

Note that the Good News Translation rendering is recast so that the various elements in the sentence are ordered differently. In order to give more prominence to the “head” and the “fat” which are focused on in the Hebrew, another possible structure for this verse can be “The head and the fat, along with the other parts of the animal, must be put in order on the fire by the priests” or “They [the priests] must put the head and the fat together with the other pieces of the animal on the fire.”

Aaron’s sons the priests: the repetition of the entire formula (see verses 5 and 7) is unnecessary and stylistically unacceptable in many languages. The pronoun “they,” as in Good News Translation, is sufficient to convey the meaning.

Upon the wood that is on the fire upon the altar: Good News Translation avoids this awkward and possibly misleading construction by mentioning only the essential element “fire” and leaving the rest implicit. It may be wise to do something like this in many other languages. The word translated fire may be rendered “burning coals” in many cases.

Lay the pieces … in order: this is the same Hebrew verb that is translated “arrange” in the previous verse. It seems to indicate that the priests could not be satisfied with simply piling wood or pieces of meat in bulk on the altar; they had to be arranged in the proper manner, although we do not know precisely how this was done.

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 .

Its entrails: it was necessary to wash the stomach and intestines, because their contents were in the process of being digested and could not be a part of what was offered on the altar. The expression “the internal organs” in Good News Translation is probably too general here, although this meaning fits the context much better in 4.12. Most versions retain the word entrails here. In some languages it will be necessary to translate “intestines.”

Its legs: the Hebrew word here has been variously understood as referring to “hind legs” (as in Good News Translation), “shins” (New English Bible and New Jerusalem Bible), or simply legs (Revised Standard Version and Jerusalem Bible). What is clear is that these parts, like the internal organs, were most likely to be unclean, both ritually and in fact. They must therefore be washed.

He: according to Good News Translation, the washing is the responsibility of the person bringing the sacrifice, while the priest is charged with the actual burning. However, the Hebrew text is ambiguous and can be interpreted to mean that the priest performs this task as a part of his duties. It is probably best to follow Good News Translation, which renders the pronoun he as “The man” and shifts the subject to the beginning of the sentence to make it more natural English. But in some languages it may be possible to use a passive or indefinite form which does not clearly define the subject: “The internal organs and hind legs must be washed, and then….”

Wash with water: in most languages it is redundant to add the words “with water” since this is already implied in the verb “to wash.”

The priest: some Septuagint manuscripts have the plural “priests,” as in the preceding verse. However, the singular is recommended here.

Burn: the corresponding Hebrew verb is a technical term used in the language of sacrifice. It evokes the idea of smoke going up from the altar toward heaven. See the discussion under the section heading for this section.

As a burnt offering, an offering by fire: these words translate two Hebrew technical terms that are simply put together in this verse. The first term is discussed under the title of this section, “Sacrifices Burnt Whole” or “holocaust.” The precise meaning of the second term is not known, but it is similar to the word for “fire” and has sometimes been translated “an offering by fire.” It is used of whole burnt offerings and of fellowship offerings alike (see chapter 3). Both Good News Translation and New English Bible take it to refer to “a food offering.” This may be taken, then, not as a separate sacrifice, but as another way of referring to the burnt offering already mentioned. See the discussion of the different types of sacrifice in the introduction, “Translating Leviticus,” page 5.

A pleasing odor to the LORD: this is a dynamic rendering of another technical term which is placed alongside the two preceding words. The phrase may be literally translated “aroma appeasing to the LORD.” However, it is unnecessary to think of appeasement in the sense that God, angered by the sins of the people, had to be appeased by sacrifices. This expression is, in fact, used almost always of the whole burnt offerings (chapter 1), of the grain offerings (chapter 2) and of the fellowship offerings (chapter 3), but only once of a sacrifice in order to obtain God’s pardon (4.31). It is possible therefore to translate this expression as “It is a whole burnt sacrifice with a pleasant odor which the LORD accepts gladly” or “in which the LORD takes pleasure and which he accepts.”

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 10-13 describe the sacrifice of the whole burnt offering of a smaller animal. Since these verses repeat the text of verses 3-9 almost word for word, in the following section it is necessary only to point out the significant differences that exist.

From the sheep or goats: in this verse the expression from the flock (see verse 2) is made explicit in the Hebrew text, so that it is quite clear that the flock refers to sheep or goats. In some languages it may be necessary to use terms that imply maleness from the beginning of this section. The New English Bible, for example, uses the word “rams” instead of “sheep.” On the identity of these animals, see the references to FFB in verse 2 above. There is no indication in the text as to why one would offer one of these smaller animals rather than the larger one, but presumably this depended upon a person’s possessions and what one was able to bring as a sacrifice.

In the Hebrew text of verses 10-13, there is no equivalent of the phrase found in verse 4, “The man shall put his hand on its head,” but this gesture is added in the Septuagint. The absence of any mention of the gesture does not necessarily indicate that it was omitted in the sacrifice of sheep or goats. It is possible that the author simply decided not to repeat all the mechanical details of the ritual. But in the case of the offering of a bird (verse 15), the reason for the omission is probably different. In any case, the translator is well advised not to follow the Septuagint in adding the gesture here, since it is not in the Hebrew text at this point.

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 corresponds to verse 5 above, but gives added information not found in the section on cattle sacrifice. The ritual slaughter of the animal takes place on the north side of the altar, which corresponds to the instructions given in Ezekiel 40.38-43. In the sanctuary of the desert, as later in the ideal Temple of Ezekiel and in Herod’s Temple, the altar seems to have been placed right in front of the main entrance, which was situated on the east. In the Temple of Solomon it was shifted to the right, which would be on the north. The slaughter on the north side of the altar therefore was performed with a certain measure of discretion behind the altar (compare Ezek 40.38-39, where the slaughter took place in a room off the northern entrance). In the translation of this verse it is essential to take into account the system of directions in the receptor language, and particularly the viewpoint of the writer, which may be the sanctuary in this case. In some cases it may be preferable to translate “on the north side of the altar of sacrifice, which is located in front of the Tent of the LORD’s presence.”

Directions are particularly difficult to express in some languages. The rising and setting of the sun often provide terms for east and west and an orientation for other directions. North becomes “to the right when facing the setting sun” and south is “to the left when facing the setting sun.” But such expressions are often quite awkward to fit into a context such as this, where the orientation for “right” and “left” is based on the altar and not the sun. Other languages take their bearings from the direction of a river, so that “north” is the equivalent of “up river” and “south” is “down river.” Great care should be taken in seeking to render directions according to the common usage in the receptor language, and checking with the average reader or hearer is essential.

Before the LORD: this is left implicit in Good News Translation, but naturalness in the receptor language should determine whether it is included in the translation.

Throw its blood: see verse 5.

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 .

Compare with verses 6 and 8.

He: the reference of this pronoun is made clearer by the use of the noun “the man” in Good News Translation. Something similar should probably be done in a number of other languages.

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 .