SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATING THE KEY TERMS IN LEV 1-7
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
communicating the function. If it were being considered seriously, checking would need to be done to ensure that a meaning such a “farewell greeting
sacrifice” was not communicated, as at times when ancestors are consulted a final sacrifice is given before taking one’s leave.
2. Covenant + sÃraga. This proposal was considered above p.87 and was found to
be wanting, as ymlv is a voluntary offering.
3. Fellowship or communion or shared + sÃraga. This is probably the solution
which best explains the function of the ymlv. It may prove difficult though to
find a Supyire word that would include the idea of fellowship with God, as God is viewed as distant and remote. It may be necessary to consider a phrase making
it explicit along the lines of God and people together offering. This phrase may prove somewhat unwieldy, and it could be argued for the shorter expression, that
once Supyire accept the idea of sacrificing to God, they would automatically assume that he would be present at the sacrificial meal. They already use the
expression, “May God add to it in their prayers” with most sacrifices.
4.
Peace or well-being + sÃraga. God is certainly seen by the Supyire as the
ultimate source of well-being, as evidenced by the many blessings they pronounce invoking the name Kile. However well being is probably not as central
a concept as fellowship in this offering. If this solution were adopted, care would need to be taken to ensure that what was communicated was the sacrifice as an
expression of joy and thanks for well-being, rather than a sacrifice to obtain well- being which is typically Supyire.
tafj 1.
Sin + sÃraga. This is too general to be a useful translation for one particular sacrifice see pp.96-7.
2. Cleansing + sÃraga. As noted above p.115, the metaphor of purification of the
pollution caused by sin is unknown to the Supyire. In the gospel of Mark we translated “to purify” as ma finiüî Kile yyahe taan
,
which means word for
word “to cleanse before God’s face”. It may be possible to render tafj as cleansing-before-God-sacrifice. This, though, would be unwieldy and may not be
necessary. In the context of Leviticus, all the sacrifices are made to God, and the reader may be able to fit this sacrifice into the pattern, especially if the translator
can supply the background information in another fashion, such as in a subtitle or footnote.
va 1.
Guilt + sÃraga. As was seen above p.105, this is based on a confusion of two homonyms, and the idea of removal of guilt is not specifically tied to this
sacrifice. 2.
Reparation + sÃraga. The Supyire concept of repairing the land which is held to be sacred in the sense of having a special relationship with Kile through sacrifice
may open the way for an understanding of va as repairing the sanctity of God’s
property or name. The term will have to be checked to ensure that the idea of repairing the land is not suggested. If that proved indeed to be the case, then a
term like reparation of God’s property + sÃraga might have to be considered.