FORM OR FUNCTION TRANSLATING LEVITICAL SACRIFICES INTO SUPYIRE
NIV burnt
offering grain offering fellowship
offering sin offering
guilt offering
TEV burnt
offering offering of
grain fellowship
offering sin offering
repayment offering
GW burnt
offering grain offering fellowship
offering offering for
sin guilt
offering NCV
whole burnt offering
grain offering fellowship offering
sin offering penalty
offering NLT
whole burnt offering
grain offering peace offering
sin offering guilt
offering REB
whole- offering
grain- offering
shared- offering
purification- offering
reparation- offering
In the cases of hlu and hjnm, all these translations have opted to translate
an aspect of the form of the sacrifice. For the hjnm it is the material offered, the
grain that is highlighted, while for the hlu it is rather the means of disposition
which is in focus the animal is burnt, or the whole animal is offered to God, or both of these. While they give the reader an idea of what happened, they give little or no
hint of the reason for the sacrifice. As for the latter three sacrifices, while the translators have not translated the
form, it appears that the majority of them have not made a significant effort to accurately reflect the function either. They have rather fallen victim to what Carson
calls the root fallacy. He writes, “One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its
components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.”
317
The root of ymlv is lv, “be complete” which has the
cognate olv, “peace”; tafj in many contexts means “sin”, and va often means
“guilt”. Hence the translations peace offering, sin offering and guilt offering have risen to prominence as a result of mere word associations. The best that can be said
for them is that they are connected in some general way to the functions of Israelite sacrifice; it is concerned to deal with the effects of sin and guilt and to bring peace
with God. But they are much too general and do not relate to the distinctive functions of the sacrifices in question.
The one translation surveyed in figure 18 which consistently avoids the root fallacy is the Revised English Bible REB, which carefully seeks to reflect the
317
Carson, D.A., Exegetical Fallacies, Grand Rapids, Baker Books, 1996, p.28.
functions in its translations shared-offering, purification-offering, and reparation- offering.
It is worth considering here the weight that the tradition of a particular rendering over years and centuries may have on the minds of translators. Particularly
in the case of tafj, the translators have not sought a clearer understanding of the
term they are translating, or for some reason have not felt free to break from the traditional “sin offering”. It is particularly striking in the case of the New Living
Translation. According to its introduction, “The translators have made a conscious
effort to provide a text that can be easily understood by the average reader of modern English.
”
318
Again, “We avoided weighty theological terms that do not communicate
to modern readers.”
319
Yet for some reason, and one can only imagine that it was the weight of tradition, they have retained the traditional renderings peace offering, sin
offering and guilt offering which are not easily understood and which do not communicate accurately the functions of the offerings.
Also worthy of note is an inconsistency in dealing with the translation of the five sacrifices: some of the terms reflect the form of the sacrifice and some reflect its
function. Even the REB which has function-based translations of ymlv, tafj and
va retains the form-based translations of the other two. This inconsistency would appear to be a less than ideal solution. If it is to be retained, then it needs to be
properly justified.
Factors to weigh in choosing between form and function
There are, though, it seems good reasons to attempt to be consistent in reflecting the functions of the sacrifices. Concentrating on the form can lead to the
difficulty of either leaving the audience totally in the dark concerning the function or, probably worse, giving them the wrong idea about the function. For example,
Degraaf
320
in his article on translating sacrifice into Nyarafolo, a language closely related to Supyire, comes up against a dilemma. On the one hand, in Nyarafolo, sun
does not collocate with God, but, on the other hand, the form of the sacrifice slitting
318
New Living Translation children’s edition 1997, p.xvi.
319
New Living Translation ch ildren’s edition 1997, p.xix.
320
DeGraaf, David “Translating ‘God’ and ‘Sacrifice’ into Nyarafolo”, Notes on Translation 13.3
1999 34-49.
the animal’s throat, letting the blood pour out, and occasionally burning up the entire thing was very similar to the form of sun in Nyarafolo culture. If the Nyarafolo
translators choose to reflect the form by using sun for sacrifices towards God, they will give the wrong signals concerning the function.
Wendland
321
points out that if one has to choose between function and form, “the priority generally lies with the function, since that is normally more crucial to
the understanding of the passage.” This concern for a good understanding of the
translation corresponds with that of Gutt’s relevance theory see chapter 7.
Gutt though enters a caveat that there is a danger in explicating the originally intended meaning “since it focuses on one particular aspect of the meaning, perhaps
precluding the reader from exploring wider ram ifications of the original intention.”
322
This concern would be most pertinent in the cases of sacrifices that have more than one function.
On the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the aim is to reach as wide a cross-section of Supyire speakers as possible, most of whom are more likely to hear
the Scriptures read rather than have the possibility of reading them themselves, let alone doing in-depth Bible study. Those Supyire who would wish to make further
studies would most likely be in a position to avail themselves of translations of the text in other languages. As Gutt himself points out, the distortion in making explicit
what is implicit may be considered negligible in comparison to the problems caused by leaving the information implicit.
323
Wendland makes four exceptions to his general rule of preferring function: “1 where the form of itself is clear or familiar enough to convey the intended
function as well… 2 where specific reference to a historical event is involved…
3 where there is a particular emphasis upon the formal features of an object or event in the context…
4 in the case of a term with special symbolic significance in the Scriptures e.g., the ritual of circumcision Gen 17:11 or the Lamb of God Jn 1:29.”
324
321
Wendland, The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, p.61.
322
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
323
Gutt, Relevance Theory, p.70.
324
Wendland, The Cultural Factor in Bible Translation, p.61.
I will take each of the four exceptions Wendland mentions in turn, and study if it applies to the translation of the Levitical sacrifices.
1 The form of itself is clear or familiar enough to convey the intended function as well. The forms of sacrifice translated in English
—burnt, cereal—do not reveal much to the average reader, and there is no indication in the research that they
would be any clearer for the Supyire reader. The Supyire do offer grain, but they do not burn their sacrifices.
2 Specific reference to a historical event. Lev 1-7 prescribe how the sacrifices are to be carried out, rather than describe historical events.
3 Particular emphasis upon the formal features of an object. It is true that the forms that the sacrifices take are important, for they are spelt out at length; but
they are spelt out in the long paragraphs and are not reflected or emphasised in the Hebrew name. The words “burnt” and “cereal” are not components of the Hebrew
words hlu and hjnm.
4 A term with special symbolic significance in the Scriptures. The term “sacrifice” certainly is a key term with theological significance throughout the Old
Testament and the New Testament. However, the particular forms of sacrifice are mentioned rarely in the New Testament; it is more common for the generic term
sacrifice or offering to be used —or for the whole range of sacrifices to be referred to
in a phrase such as “burnt offerings and sacrifices” Mark 12:33. Even when particular sacrifices are mentioned in the New Testament, the only occurrences in
which the particular form of the sacrifice is in focus refer to hksn, the drink offering
prescribed in Lev 23 for various festivals. Paul uses this offering pictorially, “But even if I am being poured out like a drink offering on the sacrifice and service
coming from your faith, I am glad and rejoice with all of you” Phil 2:17. “For I am
already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time has come for my departure” 2 Tim 4:6.
From the above discussion, I conclude that there is no strong reason to go against the general rule of describing the function of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7. There
is, though, a reasonably good case for translating hksn as “drink offering” because of
its use in New Testament imagery although care would need to be taken that the translation would not bring strongly to mind animistic practises associated with
pouring water see above, p.57. The choice of translation for hksn could have
implications for the translation of other sacrifices, especially for other non-animal offerings like
hjnm. Translations of key terms cannot be decided in isolation; they need to be considered in relation to one another so that when all the different
sacrifices are compared, there should be consistency and clarity. These implications will be considered below when the translation of
hjnm is being discussed.