The Hebrew that is typically translated as “guilt offering” in English is translated in Chol as “offerings for responsibility for sinning as well as for sinning itself.”
burnt-offering
The Hebrew olah (עֹלָה) originally means “that which goes up (in smoke).” English Bibles often translates it as “burnt-offering” or “whole burnt-offering,” focusing on the aspect of the complete burning of the offering.
The Greek Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate Bibles translate it as holokautōma / holocautōsis (ὁλοκαύτωμα / ὁλοκαύτωσις) and holocaustum, respectively, meaning “wholly burnt.” While a form of this term is widely used in many Romance languages (Spanish: holocaustos, French: holocaustes, Italian: olocausti, Portuguese: holocaustos) and originally also in the Catholic tradition of English Bible translations, it is largely not used in English anymore today (the preface of the revised edition of the Catholic New American Bible of 2011: “There have been changes in vocabulary; for example, the term ‘holocaust’ is now normally reserved for the sacrilegious attempt to destroy the Jewish people by the Third Reich.”)
Since translation into Georgian was traditionally done on the basis of the Greek Septuagint, a transliteration of holokautōma was used as well, which was changed to a translation with the meaning of “burnt offering” when the Old Testament was retranslated in the 1980’s on the basis of the Hebrew text.
In the Koongo (Ki-manianga) translation by the Alliance Biblique de la R.D. Congo (publ. in 2015) olah is translated as “kill and offer sacrifice” (source: Anicet Bassilua) and in Elhomwe as “fire offering.” (Source: project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
The English translation of Everett Fox uses offering-up (similarly, the German translation by Buber-Rosenzweig has Darhöhung and the French translation by Chouraqui montée).
See also offering (qorban).
offering
The Hebrew that is translated as “offering” in English is translated in Venda as nduvho. J. A. van Rooy (in The Bible Translator 1974, p. 439ff. ) explains: “It is derived from the verb u luvha (‘to pay homage to; to acknowledge the superiority of; at the same time usually asking for a favour’). It is sometimes used as a synonym for ‘asking something from a chief. The noun nduvho means ‘a gift of allegiance,’ which corresponds closely with minchah (מִנְחָה) as ‘offering of allegiance.’ This term nduvho has in it the elements of subjugation, of reciprocity (asking for a favor), of being taken up into the same community as the chief in allegiance to him. Only the element of expiation is missing.”
In Northern Emberá, it is translated as “given to God freely.” (Source: Loewen 1980, p. 108)
See also offering (qorban).
sin
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” 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 (Leviticus 7:37)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Leviticus 7:37:
- Kupsabiny: “These rules are the ones about the sacrifices that are to be burned completely, the food that is to be offered, the sacrifices that sweep away sins, the sacrifices that appease sin, the sacrifices for anointing and for fellowship.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
- Newari: “These are the regulations of the Burnt Offering, the Grain Offering, the Purification Sacrifice, the Guilt Offering, the Ordination Offering, and the Fellowship Offering.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
- Hiligaynon: “Those are the regulations/[lit. what-is-to-be-offered] concerning the burnt offering, gift offering, offering for becoming-clean, offering as a payment for sin, offering which (is) for ordination, and offering for a good relationship.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
- English: “Those are the regulations for the offerings that are to be completely burned on the altar, the offerings made from grain, the offerings to enable people to become acceptable to God again, the offerings for when people are guilty of not giving to Yahweh the things that are required to be given to him, the offerings given when the priests are appointed, and the offerings to maintain fellowship with Yahweh.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
law
The Greek, Hebrew, and Ge’ez that is translated in English as “Law” or “law” is translated in Mairasi as oro nasinggiei or “prohibited things” (source: Enggavoter 2004) and in Noongar with a capitalized form of the term for “words” (Warrinya) (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
In Yucateco the phrase that is used for “law” is “ordered-word” (for “commandment,” it is “spoken-word”) (source: Nida 1947, p. 198) and in Central Tarahumara it is “writing-command.” (Source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
In a 1922 translation into Chagatai, a precursor language of both Uzbek and Uighur, it is translated with the Arabic loan word shari’at (شريعت), originally meaning “(Islamic) law (Shari’a).” (Source: F. Erbay and F.N. Küçükballı in Acta Theologica 2025 45/2, p. 133ff. )
Translation commentary on Leviticus 7:37
While verses 35 and 36 serve as a minor conclusion to chapters 6 and 7, verses 37 and 38 provide at the same time a further conclusion to these chapters (see the use of law here and in 6.2, 7, 18, and so on) and also a major conclusion to the entire first section of Leviticus (chapters 1–7).
This is the law: this expression is the same as the beginning of verses 1 and 11, except that the definite article precedes law, and the conjunction is absent in this verse. The earlier verses have the conjunction but lack the definite article. In this context, however, it seems clear that we are dealing here with a summary statement. See also 6.2.
The burnt offering … the cereal offering …: each of the names of the first three kinds of sacrifices in this list is singular in form, but used in a collective sense. In many languages it will be necessary to make them all plural so that the collective meaning is clear. The translator should make certain that the names used in this summary statement correspond to the names given to each kind of offering in its own section and in the section headings.
Consecration: this word may be better translated “installation” (An American Translation), “ordination” (New International Version), or “investiture” (New Jerusalem Bible). The same word is used elsewhere for the setting of a jewel (Exo 25.7, for example). It carries the idea of putting in place. And in this context where the plural form is used, it obviously has to do with the offerings associated with the priests’ installation or ordination. For this reason several versions say explicitly “ordination offering” (New International Version and New American Bible), “installation offerings” (New English Bible), or something similar.
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 .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.