20He shall do with the bull just as is done with the bull of purification offering; he shall do the same with this. The priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.
The Greek and Hebrew that is usually translated in English as “atonement” is translated in Luchazi with minina mata: “to swallow another’s spittle.” “The human bite [is traditionally thought of] as being the most poisonous and dangerous and the poison lies in the saliva. So in swallowing another’s spittle, one takes into oneself all the poison or evil of the other and thus actually ‘becomes sin’ on behalf of the other. The substitute then proceeds to deal with the case as though he were the guilty one.” (Source: E. Pearson in The Bible Translator 1954, p. 160ff. )
The Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek that are typically translated as “priest” in English (itself deriving from Latin “presbyter” — “elder”) is often translated with a consideration of existing religious traditions. (Click or tap for details)
Bratcher / Nida (1961) say this:
“However, rather than borrow local names for priests, some of which have unwanted connotations, a number of translations have employed descriptive phrases based on certain functions: (1) those describing a ceremonial activity: Pamona uses tadu, the priestess who recites the litanies in which she describes her journey to the upper or under-world to fetch life-spirit for sick people, animals or plants; Batak Toba uses the Arabic malim, ‘Muslim religious teacher;’ ‘one who presents man’s sacrifice to God’ (Bambara, Eastern Maninkakan), ‘one who presents sacrifices’ (Baoulé, Navajo (Dinė)), ‘one who takes the name of the sacrifice’ (Kpelle, and ‘to make a sacrifice go out’ (Hausa); (2) those describing an intermediary function: ‘one who speaks to God’ (Shipibo-Conibo) and ‘spokesman of the people before God’ (Tabasco Chontal).”
In Obolo it is translated as ogwu ngwugwa or “the one who offers sacrifice” (source: Enene Enene), in Mairasi as agam aevar nevwerai: “religious leader” (source: Enggavoter 2004), in Ignaciano as “blesser, one who does ritual as a practice” (using a generic term rather than the otherwise common Spanish loan word sacerdote) (source: Willis Ott in Notes on Translation 88/1982, p. 18ff.), and in Noongar as yakin-kooranyi or “holy worker” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang).
For Guhu-Samane, Ernest Richert (in The Bible Translator, 1965, p. 81ff. ) reports this: “The [local] cult of Poro used to be an all-encompassing religious system that essentially governed all areas of life. (…) For ‘priest’ the term ‘poro father’ would at first seem to be a natural choice. However, several priests of the old cult are still living. Although they no longer function primarily as priests of the old system they still have a substantial influence on the community, and there would be more than a chance that the unqualified term would (in some contexts particularly) be equated with the priest of the poro cult. We learned, then, that the poro fathers would sometimes be called ‘knife men’ in relation to their sacrificial work. The panel was pleased to apply this term to the Jewish priest, and the Christian community has adopted it fully. [Mark 1:44, for instance, now] reads: ‘You must definitely not tell any man of this. But you go show your body to the knife man and do what Moses said about a sacrifice concerning your being healed, and the cause (base of this) will be apparent.'”
For a revision of the 1968 version of the Bible in Khmer Joseph Hong (in: The Bible Translator 1996, 233ff. ) talks about a change in wording for this term:
Bau cha r (បូជាចារ្យ) — The use of this new construction meaning “priest” is maintained to translate the Greek word hiereus. The term “mean sang (មាន សង្ឃ)” used in the old version actually means a “Buddhist monk,” and is felt to be theologically misleading. The Khmer considers the Buddhist monk as a “paddy field of merits,” a reserve of merits to be shared with other people. So a Khmer reader would find unthinkable that the mean sang in the Bible killed animals, the gravest sin for a Buddhist; and what a scandal it would be to say that a mean sang was married, had children, and drank wine.
Chicahuaxtla Triqui: “cover over” (a figure of speech which is also employed in Hebrew, but which in many languages is not acceptable, because it implies “hiding” or “concealment”)
Warao: “not being concerned with him clean your obonja.” Obonja 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.)
Martu Wangka: “throw out badness” (source: Carl Gross)
Kyaka: “burn the jaw bones” — This goes back to the pre-Christian custom of hanging the jaw bones of murdered relatives on ones door frame until the time of revenge. Christians symbolically burned those bones to show forgiveness which in turn became the word for “forgiveness” (source: Eugene Nida, according to this blog )
Koonzime: “remove the bad deed-counters” (“The Koonzime lay out the deeds symbolically — usually strips of banana leaf — and rehearse their grievances with the person addressed.”) (Source: Keith and Mary Beavon in Notes on Translation 3/1996, p. 16)
Ngbaka: ele: “forgive and forget” (Margaret Hill [in Holzhausen & Ridere 2010, p. 8f.] recalls that originally there were two different words used in Ngbaka, one for God (ɛlɛ) and one for people (mbɔkɔ — excuse something) since it was felt that people might well forgive but, unlike God, can’t forget. See also this lectionary in The Christian Century.
Amahuaca: “erase” / “smooth over” (“It was an expression the people used for smoothing over dirt when marks or drawings had been made in it. It meant wiping off dust in which marks had been made, or wiping off writing on the blackboard. To wipe off the slate, to erase, to take completely away — it has a very wide meaning and applies very well to God’s wiping away sins, removing them from the record, taking them away.”) (Source: Robert Russel, quoted in Walls / Bennett 1959, p. 193)
Gonja / Dangme: “lend / loan” (in the words of one Dangme scholar: “When you sin and you are forgiven, you forget that you have been forgiven, and continue to sin. But when you see the forgiveness as a debt/loan which you will pay for, you do not continue to sin, else you have more debts to pay” — quoted in Jonathan E.T. Kuwornu-Adjaottor in Ibadan Journal of Religious Studies 17/2 2010, p. 67ff. )
Kwere: kulekelela, meaning literally “to allow for.” Derived from the root leka which means “to leave.” In other words, forgiveness is leaving behind the offense in relationship to the person. It is also used in contexts of setting someone free. (Source: Megan Barton)
Merina Malagasy: mamela or “leave / let go (of sin / mistakes)” (source: Brigitte Rabarijaona)
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. )
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)
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.”
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 are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Leviticus 4:20:
Kupsabiny: “He shall do to this bullock everything like he did to the bullock which was used as a sacrifice which swept away the sin for the mistake of a priest. The priest shall do like this so as to extinguish the mistake/sin of the people and they are forgiven.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Just as it is done with the bull of the Purification Sacrifice, so just like that it must also be done with this bull. The priest must make atonement for them in this way and they will be forgiven.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “And he will- also -do to this cow the-same-as he did to the cow which (was) an offering for becoming-clean. He will-take all the fat[s] of the cow and will-burn (it) on the altar, and then he will-burn the cow outside the camp. By-means-of this (which) the head priest will-do, the Israelinhon will-be-redeemed from their sin and the LORD will-forgive them. This is the offering of becoming-clean for the community of Israel.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “He must do with this bull the same things that he did with the bull that was an offering for his own sins, and they will be forgiven {Yahweh will forgive them}.” (Source: Translation for Translators)
Thus shall he do with the bull; as he did with the bull of the sin offering, so shall he do with this: the wording in Revised Standard Version is rather awkward and should probably, in most languages, be restructured along the lines of Good News Translation. The idea is “he [the High Priest] shall proceed with this bull in exactly the same way as he did with the bull offered for his own sin.” New American Bible reads “doing with this bullock just as he did with the other sin offering bullock….”
And the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven: this formula is repeated in slightly different forms in each of the different cases of unintentional sin, except in the case of the High Priest himself (see 4.26b, 31b, 35b; 5.6b, 10b, 13b, 16b, 18b; 6.7). The translation should make clear that them refers to the people of Israel. But beyond this the expression has been understood in two different ways:
(1) It is interpreted as being a summary of the ritual described in the preceding verses. See, for example, Good News Translation, New English Bible, New International Version, and other versions “in this way….” But if this is the case, it is difficult to see why such an affirmation is not made at the end of the paragraph regarding the sin of the High Priest (see verse 12).
(2) The second interpretation is that this constitutes the continuation and conclusion of the ritual. That is, the High Priest adds to what has already happened, by a word or a gesture (or both) confirming explicitly the validity of what has taken place. In this case it is easy to understand why the affirmation is absent from verse 12. If this second interpretation is followed, the last half of this verse might begin with “And then the priest shall….” Or, following Jerusalem Bible, “When the priest has performed the rite of atonement over the people, they will be forgiven.” See also Traduction oecuménique de la Bible and New Jerusalem Bible.
The final expression be forgiven in either case is passive and must be changed to active form in some languages. While the agent is not expressed, it is clearly God who will forgive the people. So it may be necessary to say “and God will forgive them” or “they obtain God’s forgiveness.”
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.