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 .

Also: Good News Translation omits this word, but it may be important to include it in the receptor language in order to make clear the two aspects of the ritual.

Make restitution: the idea of restitution in English is perhaps too strong for the Hebrew word found here (compare 6.5). The text does not indicate whether the repayment plus the additional interest should be made in kind or in money.

Shall add a fifth to it: fractions such as this are often difficult to express in some languages. Some have to say something like “one part in five” or “one piece taken from every five pieces.” Good News Translation prefers to convert the fraction into a percentage, and this may be helpful to some translators. The whole phrase may be reworded as follows: “He is obligated to give to the priest all that he owes him and add a fifth (or, twenty percent) more” or “He must pay the priest what he failed to pay and add to it a fine of a fifth (or, twenty percent).”

The priest shall make atonement …: see 4.20.

With the ram of the guilt offering: this detail indicates the means by which the atonement takes place. While it is not found in other instances of the atonement (forgiveness) formula, it emphasizes the necessity of the sacrifice and implies therefore that the repayment with interest is not adequate by itself to accomplish the ritual of forgiveness.

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 structure of this verse has been radically altered in Good News Translation. Instead of making the priest the subject of the sentence, he becomes the object of the verbal expression “belongs to.” And the skin of the animal, which is the object of the verb have in Revised Standard Version, becomes the subject of the sentence in Good News Translation (see also New English Bible). Which solution should be adopted in the receptor language will be determined by deciding which structure is more natural sounding. But translators must not automatically follow the form of Good News Translation simply because it is more dynamic in English.

And: in order to make the connection with the previous verse, one may use a stronger transition word. New American Bible has “Similarly….” New Jerusalem Bible renders it “So, too,….” Another possibility is “Also….”

Burnt offering: see 1.4 and the discussion under the section heading at the beginning of chapter 1.

Any man’s burnt offering: some scholars see in this expression an indication that this regulation concerns only the whole burnt offering of a private individual. In this case “for someone” (New American Bible), or “for an individual,” or “for one person” may be appropriate. While most English versions include this detail explicitly, it has been left implicit in Good News Translation. In most languages it will probably be better to make it explicit.

The information given in this verse in unique in all the Old Testament. Nowhere else is any mention made of any part of the whole burnt offering being given to the priest (as a possession rather than as food to be eaten). It should be noted, however, that in 1.8-9 the skin is not specifically mentioned in the list of the parts that are burned on the altar, and that this is not something that can be eaten. Finally, it should be pointed out that the regulation is restricted to a certain kind of whole burnt offering: the expression any man’s burnt offering seems to indicate a sacrifice given by a private individual and probably excludes the regular daily whole burnt offering, which was offered publicly and for the entire community. In that case it is possible that not even the skin belonged to the priest.

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: the transition word here may be very important in some languages. In order to make the connection with the previous verse, it is probably better to say “Then…” (New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible) or “Immediately….” Moffatt has “Whereupon…,” which is not common language but indicates that some kind of transition word may be needed.

Brought: the verb here is often translated “brought forward” (as in Good News Translation, New International Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, and Moffatt). But New Jerusalem Bible renders it more dynamically with “made Aaron and his sons come forward.”

Washed them with water: the words with water may be redundant in many languages. Translators should also be careful not to give the impression that Moses washed his brother and his adult nephews the way a mother washes her baby. Rather he had them bathe themselves in the ritual manner required. Care should be taken not to translate by an expression that will evoke the idea of baptism (“to enter into the water” or “to be plunged into water”), but one must also avoid “take a ritual bath” if such an expression carries negative connotations because of association with indigenous practices. In seeking to avoid wrong meanings, it may be necessary to use a rather neutral translation such as “he had them wash themselves” or “he caused them to wash themselves.”

Note that New American Bible supplies the word “first” (“he first washed them with water”), which is implied but not clearly stated in the source text.

Although the text itself is not altogether clear on this point, it is most probable that Aaron and his sons were not totally naked in the presence of the assembled community. If different words are used in the receptor language for a bath in which one is totally nude and one in which the person is partly covered, then the latter will be more appropriate 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 .

The direct discourse within another direct quotation in this passage may be better translated by changing to indirect discourse in the embedded quotation, as in the Good News Translation model.

And: a stronger transition word may be required in many languages in order to make clear the continuation of the instructions. A number of English versions have “Then” (Good News Translation, New English Bible, New International Version, New Jerusalem Bible). Moffatt has “Also.”

Say: literally “speak saying.” But the use of two words for the same action is considered redundant in most languages.

To the people of Israel: the Septuagint (which is the ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament) and one Hebrew version of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) have “to the elders of Israel” to harmonize with verse 1. (The elders were, of course, a part of the people of Israel.) This reading is adopted by New American Bible, but it is not mentioned in HOTTP and is not recommended.

A male goat: see 4.22-27; in 4.13-21 a bull is required to obtain forgiveness for the Israelite community.

A calf: this does not refer to the same “bull calf” mentioned in verse 2.

A lamb: see 3.7.

Both a year old: literally “sons of a year.” Each of the two animals must be approximately a year old. The receptor-language translation should avoid giving the impression that the combined ages of the two animals is one year.

Without blemish: see 1.3 and 22.17-25.

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 eat it in a holy place: in some languages it may be more natural to say something like “You must eat it only in a holy place,” to emphasize that it may not be eaten anywhere else.

Your due and your sons’ due: see 6.18. The word due may also be rendered “portion” or “right,” or simply “that belongs to you” (Good News Translation). It denotes something prescribed by law or custom and is therefore considered something that cannot be taken away.

Offerings by fire: see 1.9.

For so I am commanded: this passive expression is rendered more naturally “That is what the LORD commanded me” in Good News Translation and should be handled similarly in many other languages (compare 8.9, 13).

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: showing the contrast with the actual seed mentioned in the previous verse.

If water is put on the seed: the soaking of the seed in water is seen by some commentators as preparation for planting, but others see it as preparing the seed to be eaten (see Bible en français courant). If the receptor language permits, it is probably best not to make too much explicit here, since we are not certain about the intention of the writer. In most cases it should be possible to translate “soaking in water” without indicating the purpose of this action.

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 .