The Hebrew and Greek that is typically translated as “confess” in English in the context of these verses is translated in a variety of ways. Here are some (back-) translations:
Huastec: “to take aim at one’s sin” (“an idiom which is derived from the action of a hunter taking aim at a bird or animal”) (source for this and all above: Bratcher / Nida)
Tabasco Chontal: “say, It is true, I’ve done evil” (source: Larson 1998, p. 204)
Central Pame: “pull out the heart” (“so that it may be clearly seen — not just by men, but by God”) (source: Nida 1952, p. 155)
Shipibo-Conibo: “say, It is true I have sinned” (source: Nida 1964, p. 228)
Obolo: itutumu ijo isibi: “speak out sin” (source: Enene Enene).
Tagbanwa: “testify that one would now drop/give-up sin” (source: Tagbanwa Back Translation)
The Hebrew 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.” Likewise, many translations contain the “connotation of moral responsibility.” Loma has (for certain types of sin) “leaving the road” (which “implies a definite standard, the transgression of which is sin”) or Navajo uses “that which is off to the side.” (Source: Bratcher / Nida). In Toraja-Sa’dan the translation is kasalan, which originally meant “transgression of a religious or moral rule” and has shifted its meaning in the context of the Bible to “transgression of God’s commandments.” (Source: H. van der Veen in The Bible Translator 1950, p. 21ff. ).
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 Kaingang, the translation is “break God’s word” and in Sandawe the original meaning of the Greek term (see above) is perfectly reflected with “miss the mark.” (Source: Ursula Wiesemann in Holzhausen / Riderer 2010, p. 36ff., 43)
Martin Ehrensvärd, one of the translators for the DanishBibelen 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. )
Following the four examples given in the previous verses (1-4), the text now moves to an account of the ceremony required. Some languages may require some special transitional device to indicate this shift from the examples to the ritual. Most English versions simply begin a new paragraph with “When…” or “Whenever….” But New Jerusalem Bible sets off the entire first four verses by means of special indentation.
The ceremony itself consists of three parts:
1. a solemn public confession of the sin committed (verse 5);
2. the offering of the victim (verse 6a; a more detailed description of the ritual is given in 4.27-35);
3. the ritual gesture of forgiveness (verse 6b; see 4.20).
He shall confess: the sacrifice is valid only when there is a sincere confession. This involved a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing before the entire community. In some languages it will be necessary to add the word “publicly” in order to make the meaning of the verb clear. Otherwise a private confession might be envisioned. In some languages this idea will have to be rendered by an expression such as “admit in the eyes of (other) people that he did wrong” or “accept before others that he sinned.”
The sin which he has committed (in verse 6): literally “the sin he sinned” as in 4.3. This expression is not the same as the one translated very similarly in verse 5, but the meaning is the same. Both may easily be left implicit in a number of languages, but it should be made clear that the reference is to one of the unintentional sins mentioned previously.
From the flock: see 1.2.
His guilt offering … for a sin offering …: the mention of the guilt offering in this verse causes a great deal of confusion. The word used here is the same as the technical term for the guilt or repayment offering discussed in verses 14-16, but in this case it is not to be taken in its technical sense. Rather it is used to mean “as his penalty” (see Good News Translation, New English Bible, New International Version, and New Jerusalem Bible).
And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin: see 4.20.
At the end of this verse, one Hebrew text called the Samaritan Pentateuch adds the words “and he shall be forgiven,” as in 4.20, 26, 31, and 35, as well as in verses 11, 13, 16, and 19 of this chapter. These words are added here by New English Bible, but very few other versions seem to find this addition necessary. It may be, however, that the Good News Translation rendering “for the man’s sin” is not strong enough.
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 .