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.

7.5 SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATING THE KEY TERMS IN LEV 1-7

I shall now consider the different sacrifices in Lev 1-7 in turn, and discuss how best to translate them by highlighting the advantages and potential problems with suggested solutions. hlu 1. Atonement or reconciliation + sÃraga. Although atonement or reconciliation expresses the main function of hlu Lev 1:4, and would be understood by the Supyire, it is probably too broad, for, as was seen above p.112, different aspects of atonement come into play in several of the sacrifices in Lev 1-7. 2. Substitute + sÃraga. This has the advantage of being more specific than the previous suggestion, and the concept of a substitute being sacrificed is familiar to the Supyire. 3. Whole + sÃraga. This would not be at all clear in Supyire, as it leaves implicit the referent “animal”, but whole + animal + sÃraga would be a possibility. Although it expresses the form of the sacrifice, it hints at its importance: the whole of the animal is devoted uniquely to Yahweh, and none of it is consumed by humans. In Lev 1:4 the purpose of atonement is given, and the link between the form and this function should not be too difficult for the reader aware of the substitutionary sacrifices that take place in Supyire culture. The translation would have to be adapted in the cases where a bird is offered, such as Lev 1:17, as there is no generic word for animal in Supyire that can also cover birds. 4. Burnt + sÃraga. This is probably an unhelpful translation in Supyire, as it communicates only something of the form. It may though be worth considering a composite with solution 3 to give whole + animal + burnt + sÃraga. This would have the advantages of whole + animal + sÃraga described above, with the additional detail that the whole animal was burnt. It leaves in no doubt that it was an animal being sacrificed, and details how it was disposed of. If it is decided to opt for a translation focusing on form, this may be the clearest, most helpful, description, as long it does not prove too long and unwieldy in Supyire. hjnm 1. Giving oneself + sÃraga. “Giving oneself” would be the Supyire way of expressing dedication of oneself to someone more powerful, which lies behind the idea of tribute. The idea of giving oneself to a deity is familiar to the Supyire. A person may be owned by a jina and, as a result, be committed to make regular sacrifices to it. 2. Cereal + sÃraga. If indeed, it is decided to render hksn as “drink offering”, then a case, too, could be made for translating hjnm as “cereal offering”. There would then be a certain consistency: the two sorts of offerings which are not animal sacrifices would be translated according to their form at the possible cost though of losing the consistency of translating all the sacrifices in Lev 1-7 according to their function. Furthermore, the concept of cereal offerings, like that of drink offerings, is familiar to the Supyire. Special care would need to be taken to check that there is no miscommunication of function. Cooked cereal is used among the Supyire: 1. as an introductory offering during the village festival; 2. as a concluding fellowship meal when it is specifically said to the jinas “Here is your meal”; and 3. as a test to see if the ancestors have accepted a sacrifice aimed to appease them and are reconciled to the family, and eating their food again see above pp.39-40. ymlv 1. Concluding + sÃraga. The argument in favour of this translation is that both Supyire and Hebrew festivals conclude with a festive communal meal. However it is not totally clear from the evidence that this was usually the concluding sacrifice for the Israelites, and the translation may be somewhat opaque in