‘What a weariness this is,’ you say: The Hebrew text begins with the word translated you say. In verses 2, 6, and 7, the same word is used to introduce an Objection element in the dispute. In these places (and also in 2.14, 17; 3.7, 8, 13) the word introduces a question that constitutes the Objection. Here however, what follows is not a question, and so it seems better to treat this as a continuation of the prophet’s Response to the previous Objection in verse 7. (The word has a similar function again in 3.14). Perhaps Revised Standard Version intends to suggest this interpretation by placing the content of the direct quotation before the verb of speaking which introduces it.

What a weariness this is translates a somewhat colloquial expression in Hebrew. The priests are showing their lack of interest in their priestly duties referred to as this. There are various idiomatic ways in which this could be said in English: “What a burden!” (New American Bible), “Oh, what a bother!” (New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “How tiresome it all is!” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible; similarly Revised English Bible). Other possibilities include “What a nuisance all this is!” and “What a bore this job is!” The Good News Translation rendering “How tired we are of all this!” could be expressed more idiomatically as “We’re fed up with all this!” In many languages there will be a natural way of making this feeling clear.

You sniff at me incorporates one of the traditional Jewish scribal alterations to the Masoretic Text, which has “at it” instead of at me, as stated in the Revised Standard Version footnote. The alteration is accepted by a majority of modern scholars and translators, including Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant, and Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch. Despite the wide acceptance of the alteration, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project reject it. The Masoretic Text “at it” would mean “at the priestly duties” rather than at the LORD personally. (Compare “at his commands” in New Living Translation.) The overall sense is not greatly different, because a wrong attitude toward the duties given by God to the priests is essentially the same thing as a wrong attitude toward God himself. Whichever form of the text translators follow, they should mention the other in a footnote. They should also be aware that the alternatives are both ancient traditions, and neither is a modern scholarly conjecture.

The verb translated sniff at indicates a gesture of disrespect. Several versions try to make this clearer by adding an adverb, such as “disdainfully” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible), “contemptuously” (New International Version), or “scornfully” (Revised English Bible). Good News Translation uses the idiom “you turn up your nose at me” (similarly New Living Translation). This is very natural in English, but probably cannot be used widely as a translation model. In other cultures there may be some other gesture associated with the nose which indicates disrespect, and it may be possible to use it here. For instance, Biblen: Det Gamle og Det Nye Testamente has “you blow on it,” and Contemporary English Version has the more general expression “you even make vulgar signs at me.” If there is no such possibility, then it may be necessary to give the meaning without describing the action; for instance, “you have only scorn for me” (Bible en français courant, Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente) or “you treat me with scorn.” It is also possible that the Hebrew word may mean “you provoke me to anger,” and this option is taken by Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch.

Says the LORD of hosts: See the notes on verse 8. Here the formula probably reinforces the impact of the previous statement.

You bring what has been taken by violence or is lame or sick: The prophet is speaking of sacrificial animals, as in verse 8. The verb translated taken by violence is ambiguous. Many scholars think it refers to animals that had been mauled by predators such as wolves, but had been rescued before they died. Such animals were not to be eaten, but were to be used to feed the dogs according to Exo 22.31. Thus they were certainly not to be used for sacrifices to the LORD. It would be in keeping with the casual attitude of the priests to accept such animals as sacrifices. This view is represented in New International Version “injured” (also in Contemporary English Version footnote) and New English Bible/Revised English Bible “mutilated.”

However, the majority of translators follow the ancient Greek and Latin versions in taking the verb to mean “stolen.” In support of this view, Verhoef notes that the Hebrew word has no definite article while the words for lame and sick do. He argues that this is because unlike the other two words it introduces a new category of unsuitable animal, mentioned here for the first time. The lame and the sick were mentioned above in verse 8 (where the Hebrew words do not have the article), whereas this is the first mention of stolen animals. If the word referred to injured animals, we would expect to find the article used here. Although the Law never actually prohibits the offering of stolen animals as sacrifices, it is clear that they could not be acceptable to the LORD because the person offering them had broken the commandment that forbids stealing (Exo 20.15; Deut 5.19).

To sum up, this Handbook recommends that translators accept the meaning “stolen.” At any rate, they should make a decision one way or the other, and should not follow the example of Revised Standard Version and New Revised Standard Version in translating ambiguously. They may of course put an alternative rendering in a footnote if they wish.

And this you bring as your offering: This clause essentially repeats the thought of the previous one, and Good News Translation runs the two together with “As your offering to me you bring….” Translators may follow this example if they wish. The word translated offering usually refers to grain offerings, but in this context it clearly includes animal offerings (compare 1.10; 2.13).

Shall I accept that from your hand?: The wording of the question is very similar to that in the statement at the end of verse 10. See the notes there. Here that refers to the offerings described in the previous sentence. The question is sarcastic, and amounts to a strong negative statement. In languages where rhetorical questions are not well understood, translators may either supply an answer, such as “Certainly not!” or indicate the expected answer (“Surely you don’t think that I will accept such offerings from you?”). Or else they may use a negative statement; for example, “You certainly cannot expect that I will accept such offerings from you.”

Says the LORD: The formula occurs here without the usual “of hosts.” The longer form is found in the Septuagint and is accepted by Bible de Jérusalem and Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible. Translators should follow the Hebrew text and use the short form, as in Revised Standard Version and most other versions (compare Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament and Hebrew Old Testament Text Project). Here the formula probably marks the transition from the dialogue form of verses 12-13 to the pronouncement in verse 14.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Malachi. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .