This entire verse has been considerably restructured in Good News Translation, and the questions have been shifted forward. This may be a helpful model to follow in the receptor language.

Said: since the quotation that follows is in answer to a question, it will be better in many languages to introduce it with a verb like “answered” or “responded.”

Behold: see verse 16.

They: the pronoun may refer to the people who presented their sin offering before the LORD, or to the sons of Aaron (the priests). Both are true in a sense. The people brought their offerings to the priests, who in turn offered them to the LORD. Since the ultimate source of the offering was the people, it is probably better to make them the subject, if the receptor language requires that it be made explicit. In some languages a passive form may be used, and in others an impersonal, undefined they will be acceptable.

Such things as these have befallen me: the text does not make explicit the fact that Aaron is speaking of “bad things” or “misfortune” happening to him, but the context makes it clear. In most languages it will be clearer to the average reader if this is made explicit in the receptor language. Compare Good News Translation “terrible things.” Both Moffatt and New American Bible use the word “misfortune.” New Jerusalem Bible has “these disasters.” If the meaning of such things as these will be unclear in the receptor language, it may be necessary to state more explicitly “the death of my two sons.”

Would it have been acceptable in the sight of the LORD?: literally “would he be pleased in the eyes of the LORD?” But this is awkward, since the pronoun “he” refers to the LORD. The essential meaning is, however, clear: “would the LORD have approved?” or “would the LORD be pleased?”

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 .