purification offering

The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “purification offering” in English is translated in Tatar as “sacrifice of redemption from sin”), in the Italian Traduzione interconfessionale in lingua corrente (2014) as offerta per il perdono dei peccati (offering for the pardon of sins), and in German as either Sühneopfer (“atoning offering”) or Sündopfer (“sin offering”). (Source: Lénart de Regt in The Bible Translator 2017, p. 131ff. )

sin

The Hebrew, Ge’ez, and Greek that is typically translated as “sin” in English has a wide variety of translations.

The Greek ἁμαρτάνω (hamartanō) carries the original verbatim meaning of “miss the mark” and likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.”

  • Loma: “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”)
  • Navajo (Dinė): “that which is off to the side” (source for this and above: Bratcher / Nida)
  • Toraja-Sa’dan: kasalan, originally meaning “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and in the context of the Bible “transgression of God’s commandments” (source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. )
  • Kaingang: “break God’s word”
  • Bariai: “bad behavior” (source: Bariai Back Translation)
  • Sandawe: “miss the mark” (like the original meaning of the Greek term) (source for this and above: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
  • Nias: horö, originally a term primarily used for sexual sin. (Source: Hummel / Telaumbanua 2007, p. 256)
  • Mauwake: “heavy” (compare forgiveness as “take away one’s heaviness”) (source: Kwan Poh San in this article )

In Shipibo-Conibo the term is hocha. Nida (1952, p. 149) tells the story of its choosing: “In some instances a native expression for sin includes many connotations, and its full meaning must be completely understood before one ever attempts to use it. This was true, for example, of the term hocha first proposed by Shipibo-Conibo natives as an equivalent for ‘sin.’ The term seemed quite all right until one day the translator heard a girl say after having broken a little pottery jar that she was guilty of ‘hocha.’ Breaking such a little jar scarcely seemed to be sin. However, the Shipibos insisted that hocha was really sin, and they explained more fully the meaning of the word. It could be used of breaking a jar, but only if the jar belonged to someone else. Hocha was nothing more nor less than destroying the possessions of another, but the meaning did not stop with purely material possessions. In their belief God owns the world and all that is in it. Anyone who destroys the work and plan of God is guilty of hocha. Hence the murderer is of all men most guilty of hocha, for he has destroyed God’s most important possession in the world, namely, man. Any destructive and malevolent spirit is hocha, for it is antagonistic and harmful to God’s creation. Rather than being a feeble word for some accidental event, this word for sin turned out to be exceedingly rich in meaning and laid a foundation for the full presentation of the redemptive act of God.”

In Warao it is translated as “bad obojona.” Obojona is a term that “includes the concepts of consciousness, will, attitude, attention and a few other miscellaneous notions.” (Source: Henry Osborn in The Bible Translator 1969, p. 74ff. ). See other occurrences of Obojona in the Warao New Testament.

Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the Danish Bibelen 2020, comments on the translation of this term: “We would explain terms, such that e.g. sin often became ‘doing what God does not want’ or ‘breaking God’s law’, ‘letting God down’, ‘disrespecting God’, ‘doing evil’, ‘acting stupidly’, ‘becoming guilty’. Now why couldn’t we just use the word sin? Well, sin in contemporary Danish, outside of the church, is mostly used about things such as delicious but unhealthy foods. Exquisite cakes and chocolates are what a sin is today.” (Source: Ehrensvärd in HIPHIL Novum 8/2023, p. 81ff. )

See also sinner.

complete verse (Ezekiel 43:21)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Ezekiel 43:21:

  • Kupsabiny: “That bullock which sweeps away sin is to be taken and be burned in the outer courtyard where a place has been set aside.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “Then you will-get the young-bull cow which is the offering of cleansing, and you will-burn it at the place for burning outside the temple.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “You must burn that bull outside the temple in the part of the temple area that I have designated for that.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

Translation commentary on Ezekiel 43:21

You shall also take the bull of the sin offering: Next God tells Ezekiel to take the young bull that has been killed for the people’s sins (see verse 19). Translators may say “You must also take the young bull that the priests have killed so I forgive the people’s sins.”

And it shall be burnt in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area: It shall be burnt is literally “he [someone] will burn it,” which means Ezekiel will not burn the carcass of the bull himself, but he will tell someone else, perhaps some of the priests (so Revised English Bible), or other Temple personnel, to do it. A model that reflects this sense is “Tell someone to burn it” or “Have someone burn it.” However, many translations render this phrase as if it were an imperative, telling Ezekiel to burn it (so Good News Translation, Contemporary English Version, New International Version, New International Reader’s Version, New Living Translation, New Century Version, Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Christian Community Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Since the person who burns the dead bull would become ritually unclean, it is not likely that Ezekiel would have been given that task. Therefore we recommend the first interpretation. The bull’s carcass is to be burned in the appointed place belonging to the temple, outside the sacred area. It is not known where this place was. The Hebrew word for appointed place can refer to a mustering area, where people or soldiers gather together, but Ezekiel does not mention a place like this in the Temple compound or its surrounding area. The place was outside the sacred area, which could mean outside the Temple building itself. If so, the appointed place might be the appointed place for sacrifices, namely, the altar itself, which was outside the Temple. The altar certainly could be described as belonging to the temple. However, it would be the only instance where Ezekiel describes the altar in this way, and it is a very unusual way of describing it. Alternatively, the appointed place may have been a place somewhere outside the whole compound of the Temple that had been set aside specifically for burning what was left over from the sacrifices. If it had been set aside, or appointed, for this purpose, it is easy to see how Ezekiel could describe it as belonging to the temple. On the whole, this seems the better interpretation. A model for the whole clause with this interpretation is “and [you will tell] others to burn it in the place outside the Temple walls that has been set aside for the Temple [for this purpose].” Block has made the interesting suggestion that in this context the Hebrew word for appointed place actually refers to an appointed person, somebody like a Temple guard, whose role it was to burn such leftovers. This is also a possible interpretation, which could be expressed as “and tell the person who has the responsibility for burning it to burn it outside the Temple walls.”

Quoted with permission from Gross, Carl & Stine, Philip C. A Handbook on Ezekiel. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .