Translation commentary on Leviticus 3:7

He: as in verse 2 above, the pronoun refers to the person bringing the sacrificial animal. In order to avoid possible confusion between the worshiper and the priest, it may be better to use the noun phrase “the man.”

Lamb: although the word used here is traditionally translated lamb, indicating a young sheep, the age of the animal is very likely not significant here. Both Good News Translation and New Jerusalem Bible render it “sheep.” New English Bible has “ram,” but this is not advisable, since the information given in verse 6 makes it clear that the animal could be male or female.

Then he shall offer it before the LORD: this information may be left implicit in many languages. Its repetition seems to add nothing to the meaning.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 4:32

He brings …: the subject of the sentence here is the guilty person. This should be made clear in translation.

A lamb: the term used in Hebrew in this verse refers to an animal of the sheep species without reference to age or sex. The fact that it is a female is made clear later in the verse.

Without blemish: see 1.3 and 22.17-25.

As in verses 23 and 28, it may be a good idea to make explicit the fact that the sacrifice is made “to obtain forgiveness from God for unintentional sins.”

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 6:19

The paragraph which is made up of verses 19-23 deals with the ceremony of consecration of the priests (compare 8.26 and 9.4) and seems to interrupt the more general instructions of the rest of the section. It has no parallel in chapters 1–5 and is omitted from the Septuagint. In 7.37 these ordination sacrifices are cited after the sin offering and the repayment offering, but in this passage they are dealt with before the others (see 6.24–7.7). This may be explained in the present context by the fact that only grain offerings are mentioned in these regulations. Therefore this paragraph seems to fit more naturally after 6.14-18, which deals with grain offerings. However, it is important that a new paragraph be started here.

Said to Moses: see 4.1.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 7:27

Whoever eats any blood: a literal rendering as in Revised Standard Version seems to indicate a more general rule than is intended here. In this context the idea is more specific and closer to the Good News Translation translation “Anyone who breaks this law.”

Cut off from his people: see verse 25. In some languages it may be desirable to add a word to show the relationship between this case and the one mentioned in verse 25; for example, “will also (or, likewise) no longer be considered one of God’s people.” The addition of “likewise” or “similarly,” or “in the same way,” will indicate to the reader that the two cases are parallel.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 8:24

And: once again the transition word should show the progression from one event to another in the ordination ceremony. Words like “Then” or “Next” are probably better than simply And.

Aaron’s sons were brought: literally “he brought Aaron’s sons.” This construction may have a passive meaning, but the passive formulation of Revised Standard Version does not reflect the Hebrew text. The idea is clearly that Moses caused the sons of Aaron to come forward for this part of the ceremony. This will have to be made active in many languages. But translators should also avoid the misunderstandings inherent in Good News Translation, “he brought … forward,” as seen in verse 13 above.

The blood: that is, the rest of the blood (see verse 15).

Threw the blood upon the altar round about: see 1.5; 3.2; and similar passages.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 9:20

They put …: according to Good News Translation (and New Jerusalem Bible) it was Aaron who performed this action. Moffatt avoids the problem with the passive “were placed.” The Good News Translation reading requires a slight change in the Hebrew text and is not followed by the majority of scholars. HOTTP recommends the plural pronoun.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 11:13 - 11:19

These verses deal with the third category of creatures which the Hebrews considered “birds.” The terminology used in that day does not correspond exactly to that which is known in the modern world and may also be at variance with other views of what constitutes a “bird.” For example, in many languages the bat mentioned in verse 19 cannot be called a “bird.” The list is made up of no less than twenty species, which leads many commentators to believe that it was intended to be exhaustive (the parallel list in Deut 14.12-18 has twenty-one names). Ten of these names appear only here and in the Deuteronomy 14 list, but nowhere else in the Old Testament. Five others are found in only one additional case outside the two lists. For this reason it is extremely difficult to identify with any degree of certainty all the species involved. Even the ancient versions such as Greek and Latin demonstrate considerable differences in their translation of these names.

In Hebrew all the names on the list are given in singular form (compare Revised Standard Version), but Good News Translation has taken into account the fact that they are collective nouns and has made them plural in translation.

Since this is the beginning of the third group discussed in this chapter, a new paragraph should be started here. It may be well in many languages to use the same kind of introductory sentence as in verses 2b and 9. The passive formulation shall not be eaten may be rendered “You must not eat….”

The repetition of the idea they are an abomination (compare verse 10) is significant because it appears for emphasis. Unless these repetitions are unacceptably awkward in the receptor language, it will be well to retain them in translation.

Many of the names on this list are followed by the expression according to its kind (compare Gen 1), which seems to indicate that the species in question is divided into two or more subgroups. In one case (verse 15) the name is preceded by the word “all” or “any” (every raven in Revised Standard Version), but this does not really change the meaning. So it has been omitted in Good News Translation.

The second word in verse 18 is usually translated pelican because of the ancient Greek and Latin renderings, but some commentators find this unconvincing in the light of the fact that this same bird is mentioned in Isaiah 34.11, Zephaniah 2.14, and Psalm 102.7 as one living in the desert or in ruins. Perhaps the renderings of New International Version or New English Bible are more likely.

In some languages it may be necessary to translate several terms by a single word in the receptor language. For example, there may be only one word for the various kinds of owls mentioned in the list. Translators may then have to say “the different kinds of owls” or something similar. In other languages there may be no word for certain of the birds in the list. If this is the case, it may be necessary to resort to a borrowing which is explained in a footnote or glossary entry. And although the final term in the list may not be considered a bird in the receptor language, it must be remembered that it was apparently included in this category in ancient Jewish thinking. So it should be a part of the bird list in this passage and not be placed in a special category. Even though the receptor-language classification of birds may be entirely different from the Old Testament system, the translator must respect what is found in the text. But an explanatory footnote will certainly be acceptable.

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 .

Translation commentary on Leviticus 13:1 - 13:2

Said to Moses and Aaron: this is the same expression translated in Revised Standard Version by two verbs in 10.8, where only Aaron is the object, and by one verb in 11.1 and most other occurrences. See also 4.1.

A swelling: the meaning of this word is disputed by scholars. Some insist that it cannot mean swelling (Snaith, page 70), but it is so translated by Revised Standard Version, An American Translation, New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version, and New Jerusalem Bible. On the other hand, New American Bible has “scab,” New English Bible has “discoloration,” and Good News Translation has simply “a sore.” A more general term as in Good News Translation is probably best.

An eruption: this may mean either a single eruption, as a “boil” (Good News Translation) or “pustule” (New English Bible, New American Bible), or possibly more numerous eruptions in the same general area of the skin, which would be translated “a rash” (New Jerusalem Bible, New International Version).

A spot: the Revised Standard Version rendering is too vague. The term refers to a “shining spot” (Jerusalem Bible), “a white spot” (Moffatt), or a “bright spot” (New International Version) because it is inflamed. A better rendering is therefore “an inflammation” (Good News Translation and New English Bible) or an “inflamed spot” (An American Translation).

And it turns into: this phrase indicates that the disease on that part of the skin could possibly become more serious. Hence it is translated “may develop into…” (New English Bible), “may become…,” or “could develop into…” (New Jerusalem Bible and Good News Translation).

A leprous disease: literally “a mark of leprosy.” See the discussion of the issue of “leprosy” at the beginning of this chapter. Similar to the Good News Translation rendering seen above, New English Bible has “a malignant skin disease,” and New International Version has “an infectious skin disease” in this verse. Any of these is preferable to using the receptor-language word for “leprosy.”

He shall be brought: in place of this passive construction, some languages may have to say “they [indefinite] must bring him” or “someone must take him to the priest.”

To Aaron the priest or to one of his sons the priests: see 1.5. This long expression simply means one of the priests from the family of Aaron. The wording of New English Bible may be helpful to some translators: “either to Aaron or to one of his sons.” The word translated sons may also be understood to mean “descendants.”

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 .