You shall count: literally “you shall count for yourself.” The two pronouns are singular in form but should be understood collectively as referring to the people of Israel as a whole. In some languages the verb here will be better translated “wait,” as in the similar passage in 15.13.

Seven weeks of years: the word translated weeks is actually translated elsewhere as “sabbaths” and has the root meaning “seven” (see 16.31). So the phrases seven weeks of years (used twice) and “seven times seven years” have exactly the same meaning and can be translated once, if the repetition is stylistically unacceptable in the receptor language.

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 advisable in many languages to restructure the first part of this verse to say something like “if the offering you bring is bread cooked in a pan” or “if what you offer is pan-baked bread” or “if your grain offering is one made into bread in a pan….”

Cooked in a pan: a metal disk, slightly rounded or bent upward at the edges, something like a frying pan. In some cases an instrument was made so that it could serve as a pan when held one way and a griddle (verse 5) when turned over.

It shall be made: an impersonal passive form such as this is often used in giving instructions. In the previous verses (4-6) as well as in the beginning of this verse the pronouns are second person singular. But both the second person singular and the passive forms are used for giving directions of a general nature. In some receptor languages an impersonal third person (singular or plural) may be used, but others may retain the second person singular or use a second person plural everywhere—including those places where the source text has the impersonal passive. The most important question the translators must ask themselves is “How do we normally speak when giving general instructions?” The same forms should then be used in this context.

This verse does not explicitly state that the bread is prepared without yeast (is unleavened), but verse 11 leaves no doubt that this is the case. So this information should probably be supplied, if there is any danger that the reader might think that yeast would be used in this case.

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 case cited in this verse is different from that of verses 14-16, in that the former has to do specifically with a person appropriating for his own use something that had been previously consecrated to the LORD. These verses (17-19) concern the more general case of committing any forbidden act.

Sins: see 4.2, 3.

Doing any of the things which the LORD has commanded not to be done: see 4.2.

Though he does not know it: although the wording is different, this has essentially the same meaning as “unwittingly” in 4.2 and elsewhere. Some translators, however, may prefer to maintain a distinction between these two expressions.

Shall bear his iniquity: see verse 1.

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 .

And: in some languages it may be wise to use a transition word such as “Likewise” at this point. This is another case where a part of an offering belongs to the priest who offers it.

Oven … pan … griddle: see 2.4-7.

Who offers it: the translation should not give the impression that the priest makes this offering for himself. Rather he presides over the ceremony in which another person has brought an offering. In some languages it may be necessary to say “the priest who offers it to God for another person.”

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 .

On him: it is probably better to specify “on Aaron” (Good News Translation) in most languages in order to clarify the meaning.

The precise identification of the various articles of clothing listed in this verse is very difficult. In some cases the exact meaning is unknown. The translator should try to visualize the whole and then formulate it in such a way as to be meaningful to the readers. Footnotes may be necessary in order to emphasize the fact that the clothing mentioned here was special and reserved for the priests. The practice of transliterating the Hebrew terminology should be avoided if at all possible, but if no other solution can be found, a footnote or glossary explanation will definitely be required. For more details on the clothing of the priests, see Exodus 28.1-43 and 39.1-31.

The coat: in Exodus (28.4, 39; 39.27) this garment is mentioned without any detailed description. In ordinary usage the Hebrew word refers to an everyday article of clothing worn by men and women alike and was probably a sort of “shirt.” The Revised Standard Version coat is misleading, since it was not an outer garment but one worn underneath other clothing and next to the body. It has often been translated “tunic” (New International Version, New English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible).

The girdle: see Exodus 28.4, 39; 39.29. In modern English the word girdle is also misleading. This piece was a long embroidered sash that was wrapped around the midsection and served as a kind of belt. However, in addition to its purely functional use, it also seems to have had a symbolic meaning as a sign of the priesthood. Many English versions use the word “sash,” but in some languages it may be necessary to say “the broad band.” In any case, it should be carefully distinguished from the skillfully woven band of the ephod, or “belt,” mentioned later in this verse.

The robe: this garment is described in Exodus 28.31-35 and 39.22-26. It was a kind of outer shirt consisting of a large piece of cloth with a hole cut for the head and with the edges around the hole sewn in order to prevent shredding. It probably reached down to the feet like the long flowing robe worn in the Middle East and parts of West Africa today.

The ephod: this term is a transliteration of the Hebrew and is by far the most difficult piece of the priestly clothing to translate. It is often mentioned in Exodus without ever being described in detail (Exo 25.7; 28.6; 29.5; 39.2-3). In the Old Testament this same word refers to at least three different items: (1) It was a kind of white linen undergarment worn by the priest on his lower body (see 1 Sam 2.18; 2 Sam 6.14, 20; 1 Chr 15.27). (2) It was some sort of cultic object, like a statue, used in divination (Judges 17.5; 18.14, 17; 1 Sam. 2.28; 21.9) or possibly a sack or some other kind of container used to hold such cultic objects (see Traduction oecuménique de la Bible note on Judges 8.27). (3) But in the present case it seems to have been a kind of apron with shoulder straps and tied with the skilfully woven band probably behind the back (see Exo 28.6-7; 39.2-4). Almost all English versions transliterate, but An American Translation has simply “the apron,” and Moffatt translates “the sacred apron.” In other languages it may be possible to say something like Moffatt‘s rendering or “the priestly apron.”

The skilfully woven band: this band or belt seems to have been made with the same material as the ephod (Exo 28.8) and attached to its corners so that it could be tied. The use of the singular does not necessarily mean that there was only one. The term may have been used in a collective sense. According to an ancient Jewish interpretation, the word translated skilfully has no place here. The word simply means “girdle,” or “waistband,” or “belt.” This idea is therefore omitted in New Jerusalem Bible and New English Bible as well as in many non-English versions, and may also be left out of the receptor-language rendering. It is interesting to note, however, that New Jerusalem Bible has “the decorated band.”

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 .

An ox: the Hebrew term indicates any member of “the herd,” that is, of the larger animals, including oxen and cattle, either male or female. This corresponds to the information found in chapter 3. But given the context, which speaks only of male animals, the term “bull” is satisfactory here. In languages which have only a general term which does not specify the sex of the animal, this word will also be acceptable without providing any additional information.

Cereal offering: Good News Translation “grain offering.” See chapter 2.

The LORD will appear to you: the verb tense used in Hebrew indicates completed action and may be more literally rendered “for the LORD has been seen by you.” But the ancient versions and most modern translations understand it to refer to an assured future event. The verb appear must be translated in some languages as “reveal himself” (New American Bible), “show himself,” “present himself,” “make himself known,” or “cause people to see him,” but in others a passive form “be seen” will be most natural.

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 .

But: this marks the contrast between the requirements for the leftover grain offering in the previous verse and the fellowship offering here.

That is waved: see 7.30.

In any clean place: the Septuagint has “holy” instead of clean here. But this is incorrect, since the text intentionally makes a difference. The grain offering was to be eaten only by the priests and therefore in a “holy” place (beside the altar); but the fellowship offering could be eaten by the entire family of the priest, including the daughters, and therefore could not be in the Holy Place, but could be in any place that was ritually clean. In languages where the word for “holy” is the same as the word for clean, special care should be taken to ensure that the idea of any ritually clean place is conveyed here. The technical term used for “the Holy Place” should be avoided.

Your sons and your daughters: Good News Translation translates this simply as “your children,” but in some languages this may not be adequate to emphasize the fact that daughters as well as sons were permitted to eat of this offering. It may be better to say “your sons and also your daughters,” or “your female children as well as the males,” or “the women in the priestly family as well as the men.” There is no indication elsewhere in the Old Testament that Aaron had any daughters, but there is no proof that he did not. However, this regulation is intended as a general one that is applied to the descendants of Aaron as well as to the immediate situation.

Peace offerings: Good News Translation “fellowship offerings.” See 3.1.

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 .