Verses 14-17 describe the whole burnt offering of a bird. This paragraph is not constructed like the two preceding ones. According to some scholars this is because the ritual described here was added some time after the other two were instituted. This ritual may have been adopted because some of the people who wanted to offer sacrifices were too poor to afford the larger animals.

His offering of turtledoves or of young pigeons: only these two kinds of birds could be offered by the Israelites as sacrifices. Other birds were considered unfit to be presented to the LORD. In Hebrew the two words are plural in form and are used in such a way as to indicate that one would be permitted to offer a single bird. The use of the plural in Revised Standard Version, New English Bible, and other versions gives the impression that the offering must consist of more than one bird. While the bird (singular) is chosen from among the various acceptable kinds of “birds,” Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible convey the meaning more clearly by using the singular forms in translation.

In some languages “doves” are considered wild while “pigeons” are domesticated. But in those languages which do not distinguish between “doves” and “pigeons,” one may say “a pigeon of one kind or another” or “any kind of pigeon” or perhaps “a pigeon or a smaller pigeon,” since the size of the bird is the distinctive feature in this context.

Young pigeons: literally “sons of pigeons.” As explained in verse 5, the words “sons of…” do not necessarily refer to youth but to membership in a group. The addition of the word young in Revised Standard Version is therefore not a good model to follow, nor is “a young pigeon” in New International Version.

The phrase in verse 4, “The man shall put his hand on its head,” has no equivalent in verses 14-17 (compare also verse 10), but the reason for its absence is probably different in this case. If the offering were a bull, a ram, or a goat, it may have been brought to the altar by more than one person. So it would be necessary that the one actually offering the sacrifice should identify himself as the owner by placing his hand on the head of the victim. But in this case the person offering the dove or pigeon would bring it in his own hands. So it would be pointless to add an extra gesture to indicate that the offering was his.

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 priest: the priest presides over the entire ritual; there is no apparent division of labor between the lay person and the priest, as in the case where a larger animal is offered. In this verse the priest seems to be the implied subject of all four verbs.

Wring off its head: the meaning of the Hebrew verb in this verse is uncertain. It is found only twice in the Old Testament (see 5.8). It is generally thought that it implies the idea of squeezing or pinching off the head with the fingernail. Apparently the Hebrew verb implies the idea of a complete break or separation in this verse, since the priest must burn the head on the altar. In some languages it may be more natural to say something like “twist off at the neck.” But in 5.8 it is explicitly stated that this gesture must be made “without pulling off its head.” The context of verse 15 puts more weight on the fact that the head is detached from the body than on the way in which it is actually done.

Burn it: this refers to the head (see Good News Translation) and not the entire bird. Compare verse 9.

Its blood shall be drained out: the verb used here is different from the one found in verses 5 and 11 regarding larger animals, and it should be translated differently here. The body of the bird was squeezed against the side of the altar, since there would not have been enough blood to perform the complete ritual described earlier. Moffatt translates “squeezed out.” Although HOTTP recommends the passive reading at this point, many languages will have to translate the meaning actively and make the priest the subject of the verb. New American Bible does so with “and [the priest shall] squeeze out its blood….”

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 .

In order to show the sequence of events more clearly, it may be better to begin this verse with “Then….”

Take away its crop: that part of the bird which serves as a receptacle for food and where the process of digestion begins must be removed, just as the stomach and intestines of the larger animals had to be removed (see verses 9 and 13). Here it is the most visible and most easily accessible part of the digestive apparatus of the bird that is eliminated.

With the feathers: the Hebrew word here has been understood in two very different senses: some translations (Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, and New American Bible) have followed the ancient Greek and Latin translations and rendered it feathers; others (Good News Translation, New English Bible, and New Jerusalem Bible) follow the interpretation of the Targum and the Syriac translation and understand it as referring to the contents of the crop. The parallelism with verses 9 and 13 seems to favor this second interpretation.

Cast it beside the altar: the context clearly indicates that these parts were tossed aside as worthless rubbish. The ashes and rubbish thrown away in this manner were raked out just before dawn and eventually thrown into the Kidron Valley.

On the east side: literally “on the side of the altar, on the east.” But such a construction will be awkward in many languages. What is important here is that it is on the side of the altar that was farthest from the sanctuary where the ashes were deposited before removing them completely from the camp (see 4.12). These ashes are what remains after the burning of the sacrifices. The direction east (as in verse 11) should be expressed according to the receptor-language system; for example, “on the side where the sun rises.” Or in some cases it may be better to simply say “on the side of the altar away from the sanctuary” or “in front of the altar on the right side.”

The place for ashes: there is no indication that there was a special container for the ashes. Rather it was probably an area on the east side of the altar where waste materials were piled up. The word for ashes comes from a root that means “fat.” If the receptor language has a special word for ashes containing fatty material, it will be appropriate here. Some languages say “the place where they [indefinite] pile the ashes.”

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 1-2 introduce chapters 1–3, or perhaps the entire section on offerings and sacrifices, chapters 1–7.

LORD: in order to translate the proper name of God from the Hebrew, Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation have adopted the solution chosen by numerous other English translations (New English Bible, New American Bible, New International Version [New International Version], New American Standard Bible [New American Standard Bible], and even King James Version [King James Version] in 1611). The word “LORD” with all capital letters is used when the Hebrew has YHWH, but “Lord” is used when the original has Adonay, meaning “Master,” “Lord,” or “Sovereign.” In this verse the name of God is written with four consonants, YHWH. Its pronunciation in ancient times is uncertain, but was probably Yahweh or Yahwoh. Many centuries before the Christian era, this name was considered to have such special power that the Jews avoided pronouncing it (in technical terms, this is referred to as a “positive taboo”; see Theory and Practice of Translation, pages 82-83). Instead, they pronounced the Hebrew title meaning “Lord.”

Some translations simply transcribe the Hebrew name YHWH as “Yahweh” (New Jerusalem Bible), and others use the artificial form “Jehovah” (King James Version in a few cases and American Standard Version consistently). The form “Jehovah” is based on a pronunciation that was first introduced in 1520 by Galatinus and was not the pronunciation of the ancient Jews. The transliteration of this form should therefore be avoided. There is, however, some merit in transliterating YHWH, since it is a proper noun. Other translators have made an effort to “translate” the supposed meaning of this name by “the Eternal” (Moffatt [Moffatt] and several French versions); but such renderings only replace a personal name by an impersonal abstraction. In some cultures there may be a personal name for God distinct from the generic term for “god” but quite similar in usage to the biblical term used here. In such cases it may be wise to adopt this name as the equivalent for YHWH. This possibility has often been overlooked in past translations of the Bible. But even though the commonly used name in the receptor language is not an exact equivalent of YHWH, it may be wise to use it in translation and give a full explanation of the biblical name in the glossary.

In some languages today it is also legitimate to add, if necessary, a possessive form such as “my LORD” or “their LORD” (according to the context), although this was never done with the personal name in Hebrew. For a more complete discussion of the divine name and other terms for God, see the April 1984 issue of The Bible Translator.

Called … spoke … saying …: these three verbs are very similar in meaning. The Hebrew word translated saying in Revised Standard Version often serves in Hebrew simply to mark the beginning of a quotation. So the use of quotation marks in the receptor language may adequately represent this word. But many languages have a similar word that can be used to introduce a quotation. Note that Good News Translation has reduced this to two verbal expressions: “called” and “gave … rules.” In Hebrew the subject of the verb called is not made explicit. It is only in the second clause, “the LORD spoke,” that the LORD is clearly given as the subject. Although the first verb does not have an expressed subject, it is obvious that it could only be the LORD himself. Most languages will probably require that the subject be stated with the first verb, as in the English versions. The meaning of the verb “call” is probably to “summon” or “call for attention.”

From: in some languages it may be necessary to indicate the position of Moses relative to the tent at the time when the LORD called him. Since this verse is connected with the end of the book of Exodus, where the cloud covered the Tent of the LORD’s presence so that Moses could not go in (Exo 40.35), it is most probable that he was standing at or near the entrance when he was called, and that the voice of the LORD came from within the Tent.

The tent of meeting: a literal translation like that of Revised Standard Version does not adequately convey the full meaning of this expression. It is the portable sanctuary of the people of Israel, described in Exodus 25–30, and in which God meets with Moses to communicate to him the divine will (see Exo 33.7-11). This tent was considered a very special place where God revealed himself to his people (Exo 29.42-46). The Good News Translation rendering, “Tent of the LORD’s presence,” highlights these facts and provides a better model for most languages. In some languages one may say “the tent where God lives” (although one must not give the impression that he is restricted to the tent), or “the tent where the LORD is,” or “the place where the LORD appears.”

In some languages the word tent itself presents problems. It has to be translated “a temporary (or, portable) shelter” or “a house made of skins.”

Saying: note that Good News Translation supplies implicit information by translating here “gave him the following rules.” This may be a good model to follow in the receptor language, although the word “rules” may be better rendered “instructions” or “laws.”

Quoted with permission from Péter-Contesse, René and Ellington, John. A Handbook on Leviticus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1990.

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 .

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 .

Here again it may be a good idea to show the continuity of the actions by introducing the verse with “Then….”

Tear it by its wings, but shall not divide it asunder: the unexpressed object of the verb divide (or “sever”) is very likely the two parts of the bird, rather than its wings. The action of taking apart was probably done with the bare hands (using the fingernails), and not with an instrument, as Jewish tradition states and as is explicitly indicated in the LatinVulgate.

Burn it: here we have the same conclusion as found at the end of verses 9 and 13. So the translation adopted here should be identical with the one used at the end of the previous two paragraphs.

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 .

It will be noted that the structures of Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation in this verse differ considerably. In Hebrew the direct discourse begins at the beginning of verse 2, as in Revised Standard Version. In many languages it is not good to have a direct quotation (verse 2b) within another direct quotation (verse 2a). Good News Translation has adopted the solution of not marking anything at all as a direct quotation. The equivalent of the Revised Standard Version direct quotation is preceded in verse 1 by the words “gave him the following rules” in Good News Translation. At this point the translator should take into account what is most natural in the receptor language, either maintaining the direct discourse in verse 2a or shifting to indirect discourse.

Revised Standard Version includes within direct quotes certain information found in the introductory statement in Good News Translation. Good News Translation, on the other hand, leaves implicit the fact that sacrifices are made to the LORD, which the more literal Revised Standard Version makes explicit. If the translation uses direct speech for the rules, it may seem unnatural for the LORD to refer to himself, in “sacrifices to Yahweh,” and it may be better to follow Good News Translation as model. Translators should consider the requirements of their own language with regard to the arrangement of this verse and translate the meaning as naturally as possible. It should also be noted that this problem appears frequently throughout the book of Leviticus (compare, for example, the first verse in chapters 4, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, and elsewhere).

Speak to the people of Israel, and say to them: in most languages such repetition is unnecessary after the three similar verbs in the previous verse. It should be adequate to say simply “say to the people of Israel.”

When …: in the first five chapters of Leviticus, there are two different words that may be translated “when” or “if.” The Hebrew word ki, normally translated “when,” is found here and in 2.1, 4; 5.1, 3, 4, 5, 15; 6.1, 4. The Hebrew word ʾim, usually rendered “if,” occurs in this chapter in verses 3, 10, and 14, as well as at 2.5, 7; 3.1, 6, 12; 4.3, 13, 27, 32; 5.5, 11, 17. These two words seem to be used almost interchangeably, but they serve as markers indicating paragraph breaks in the discourse. For example, the chapter begins by defining the general case, using the Hebrew conjunction ki, and then three subordinate cases introduced by ʾim (verses 3-9, 10-13, and 14-17), as indicated by Wenham. It is probably best to follow the example of Good News Translation, using “when” at the beginning of each section and “if” to introduce the paragraphs within the section, unless the receptor language has a better way of marking such features of discourse.

Brings an offering: the noun and the verb have the same root, literally “offer an offering.” Good News Translation has “offer their sacrifices.” In Numbers and Ezekiel as well as Leviticus, the Hebrew word for offering is a very general term used to designate anything given as a sacrifice to God. In Nehemiah 10.35 and 13.31 it is even used of nonsacrificial offerings made to God. In this context it should normally be translated by a very generic term in the receptor language rather than using terminology for a specific kind of sacrifice. Whatever term is chosen must cover both animals and plant products that may be burned or given to the priests.

Any man of you: this may be better translated in many languages as “anyone” or “a person.” This will leave implicit the words of you, meaning “among you [Israelites].”

Offering of cattle from the herd or from the flock: literally “offering from the animals from the herd or from the flock.” To translators who do not speak English as their first language, Revised Standard Version may give the impression that the offering only includes cattle. The word herd is usually used to refer to larger animals such as cattle or oxen. On the other hand, flock normally refers to smaller animals such as sheep or goats. And the word translated cattle in Revised Standard Version is actually a very generic word that can refer to domestic animals of any kind. By translating “one of his cattle or one of his sheep or goats,” Good News Translation has made explicit the fact that the larger animals are cattle and the smaller animals refer to sheep or goats. Naturalness in the receptor language should be the determining factor in deciding whether to translate using more specific terms such as cattle, sheep, and goats, or more generic expressions such as “larger animals and smaller animals.” While the terms herd and flock do not appear in Fauna and Flora of the Bible (FFB), the animals included in these groups are discussed.

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 1-3 bring together general information with regard to this type of offering.

When …: see the discussion of “when” and “if” at 1.2.

Any one: literally “a soul.” The word is probably best translated “a person” in this context.

Cereal offering: the term used here is a general one for any offering of grain, but the remainder of the verse and the following paragraph describes one of the ways the grain was to be treated in order to make it acceptable as an offering to the LORD. Verses 4-10 describe another kind of offering using the same materials prepared differently, and verses 11-13 give still another possibility. In those languages which have no generic word for “grain,” a serious translation problem may arise. The general term refers to the seed of cultivated cereal grasses including wheat, barley, millet, and sorghum. In some cases translators are forced to resort to something like “small seeds” with an explanation in a footnote or glossary entry.

To the LORD: if direct discourse is being used as in Revised Standard Version, New International Version, and many other versions, this should probably be translated “to me” in most languages.

Fine flour: in Hebrew there are two words that refer to ground grain. The first, which is used here, represents a kind of semolina or coarser wheat flour. It is a product that is less finely ground than the material referred to by the second word (found in Num 5.15, for example). However, the first type was considered a more sumptuous kind of flour (made from wheat), used primarily in ritual offerings. The second type, on the other hand, was just ordinary flour (made from barley or wheat) and was rarely used in offerings to God. In translation the primary focus should not be on the fineness of the grinding, but on the high quality of this particular kind of flour as opposed to the commonness of the other type. If the translator has trouble finding corresponding terminology, it is possible to use an ordinary word for the common flour or meal (“coarse meal” or “flour”) and the same word qualified by “best” or “finest” for the more luxurious product (compare New Jerusalem Bible “choice flour”).

Oil: the term used here is a very general one which, in other contexts, may mean “fat.” But here it refers to oil, and for all practical purposes the people of Israel knew only olive oil. This is made explicit in Good News Translation. In those languages where olive trees are unknown, it is possible to use a more general term referring to vegetable oil, but excluding animal fat in this context.

Frankincense: a resin, or gummy substance which comes from a tree or shrub. It was dried and in some cases reduced to a powder. This substance was often used in rituals of antiquity, because it produces a pleasant odor when burned. It was a very expensive product because it was usually imported from the southeastern coast of the Arabian peninsula, through the intermediary of Arabia. Normally it was used only in ritual ceremonies. To give a meaningful rendering of this term, some translators have had to resort to expressions like “something that smells sweet when it is burned” or “tree sap that smells like perfume when burned.”

Pour … and put: Good News Translation uses a single verb for what is done with the oil and the incense, but the Hebrew has two. In the receptor language it may be better to separate the two actions as in Revised Standard Version: pour for the oil and put or “apply” with regard to the incense, since one is liquid and the other is in the form of a solid or a powder. Translators should be careful not to give the impression that the incense is mixed in with the flour. Rather it is given alongside or on top of it.

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 3-9 describe the whole burnt offering of an animal taken from the group of larger animals referred to in verse 2.

If his offering is a burnt offering: this expression is similar to 3.1, “If a man’s offering is a sacrifice of peace offering….” In both cases the first term is the general one for anything offered to God, and the second is the more specific expression. The word translated burnt offering here has already been discussed under the heading for this section.

From the herd: Good News Translation has “one of his cattle.” This is parallel to “from the flock” (Good News Translation “one of his sheep or goats”) in verse 10 and “of birds” in verse 14. In each case the topic of the paragraph is introduced. If natural, the beginning of these three paragraphs should be made parallel in the receptor language in order to highlight the discourse structure of this chapter.

A male: in English the word “bull” contains the idea of maleness as well as a member of the group called cattle. The translator should use whatever conveys this idea naturally in the receptor language.

Without blemish: any kind of physical defect such as blindness, skin disease, or paralysis automatically excluded an animal from being offered in sacrifice to the LORD. The details of this requirement are given in 22.17-25. What is needed in this verse is a simple term that would include any kind of deformity. Some languages may have to say “that is not spoiled in the least,” or “that has not the slightest flaw,” or simply “flawless.”

He shall offer it: this does not refer to the act of killing the animal, as a literal translation may imply, but to bringing it near to the LORD for use as a sacrifice. Good News Translation “present it” is a good model.

At the door of the tent of meeting: the term door may be understood as referring either to the large entrance way leading into the court, or to the entrance way of the tent itself. In either case, it may not be appropriate to use the word “door” since this would give the idea of some kind of wooden or metal object used to close an entrance way. In this context the word probably refers to the opening or entrance way to the “Tent of the LORD’s presence” and was near the altar of sacrifices on the outside of the Tent (see Exo 40.6-7, 29-30). In some languages this may be expressed by a word meaning “mouth,” “hole,” or “opening.”

That he may be accepted before the LORD: literally “for his/its favor before the LORD.” Grammatically the Hebrew possessive may refer to the animal (“in order that it might be accepted”), as in New Jerusalem Bible and New International Version, or to the one who is offering the animal (“in order that he might be accepted”). The usage of this kind of expression elsewhere in the Old Testament leads many scholars to the latter meaning, which corresponds to what is found in Revised Standard Version and Good News Translation (see especially 19.5; 22.19,29; and 23.11, where the meaning is unambiguous). But the overall meaning of the passage is not radically changed if one accepts the other possibility. The person offering the sacrifice is accepted only if the sacrifice itself is acceptable. Compare the New Jewish Version (New Jerusalem Bible) rendering: “for acceptance in his behalf before the LORD.” A person who is “accepted” by the LORD in this context is one who is allowed to participate in this act of worship. He recognizes his unworthiness and his need to placate God. He is therefore considered “good enough” or “worthy” to offer the sacrifice.

It should be noted that here and throughout this passage, when the word LORD occurs, the translation will depend on the decision made about direct versus indirect discourse at the beginning of the chapter. If the translators have made this a direct quotation as in New International Version, for example, most languages will require that the LORD speak of himself in the first person rather than the third person. So this verse will then read “before me” or “before me, the LORD.” And verse 9 will then end with the words “pleasing to me” rather than “pleasing to the LORD.” Since the passage that may be translated as a direct quotation is very long, it is easy to forget this modification. But translators should pay attention each time the word LORD appears, and ask themselves whether it is part of a passage where God himself is speaking. If it is unnatural in the language for a person to speak of himself in the third person, then the proper changes must be made in the translation.

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 .