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.

7.6 CONCLUSION

We will never make the perfect translation of the Levitical sacrifices into Supyire, due to the mismatch between the Levitical and Supyire worldviews. Indeed, the very nature of translation means that perfection is never attainable. However, the aim is to get as close as possible and seek a close enough fit, so that the reader can expand and shape the meaning 325 of the words to fit the context. This is what Goerling calls “reinterpretation” The reader can be helped in this regard by study aids such as subtitles, footnotes, glossaries, and teaching booklets. 325 This is one way languages evolve and expand. One example is the case of the use of in Greek in John 1. The author built on an image known in Jewish and Greek literature to represent Christ as the preincarnate Word of God.

8. CONCLUDING REFLECTIONS

By way of conclusion, I shall offer a résumé of the main lines of argument in this thesis, and then look forward to the challenges that still lie ahead for the Supyire team as we work on the translation of Levitical sacrifices. Before any attempt is made at translation of Scripture, Wendland emphasizes the need for a thorough exegesis of the biblical and receptor cultures see p.2. In seeking to comprehend the nature of Supyire and biblical sacrifices, I have tried to avoid the trap of imposing any pre-conceived model of sacrifice on the source material. My concern has been to allow the source material to be pre-eminent, to penetrate the mindset of the Israelites and Supyire worshippers, and understand how they view what is going on when they bring offerings. To do this, it has been necessary not only to concentrate on the forms and functions of the sacrifices themselves, but to cast a look at the wider contexts: to discern how sacrifice relates to the way they see themselves and their cosmos, and their fundamental goals in life. For the Supyire people, harmonious relationships with the multiple deities and forces in their pantheon are never far from mind. In Leviticus, the focus is again on harmonious relations, but this time with Yahweh, the holy omnipotent God who has redeemed his people and expects them to act in accordance with his character. This difference of focus is also reflected in how the two communities understand the nature of sacrifice. The Levitical view is that sacrifices are effective because God provided them as a means to divert his wrath away from those whose have sinned against him, and onto a substitute. Once the relationship has been restored, they are a means of celebrating the divine-human covenant between Yahweh and his people. God himself has provided the means for sacrifice; as omnipotent Creator, he has no need for anyone to give him anything. The Supyire, by contrast, believe that in making their sacrifices, they are giving to a deity something from which it is going to derive benefit, something from which it can increase its power. The gift is given with the intention of receiving in return. As a result of his gift, he expects that the deity will be obliged to return the favour in some way. The differences can be highlighted further by contrasting each community’s understanding of the symbolism of blood. In the Pentateuch, blood is a symbol of the death of the substitute animal Yahweh has provided. For the Supyire,