Semantic Analysis: Leviticus (Full Book) — English → French

Methodology Note on Original Language

Unlike Romans, Leviticus was not composed in Koine Greek but in Biblical Hebrew (Masoretic Text). To honor the spirit of the instruction — full original-language grounding — this analysis gives the Hebrew original for every load-bearing term as the primary source, and also cites the Septuagint (LXX) Greek rendering for each term. This serves two purposes required by this project specifically:

1. It gives reviewers a Koine Greek anchor consistent with the Romans baseline package’s methodology.
2. It surfaces the direct lexical bridge between Leviticus’s cultic vocabulary and the New Testament’s theological Greek vocabulary already fixed in translation_memory.json — e.g., Leviticus’s כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporet, “atonement cover”) is rendered in the LXX as ἱλαστήριον, the very word Paul uses of Christ in Romans 3:25. Where such a bridge exists, it is flagged, because it directly affects how the French rendering of Leviticus should be chosen to stay consistent with the Romans package’s theological vocabulary.

All French renderings below follow the register and conventions of the baseline Romans package (ecumenical, TOB/Bible de Jérusalem-informed, Segond-aware but not Segond-archaic). Where a term already has an established rendering in translation_memory.json, that rendering is reused exactly and marked [BASELINE REUSE].

---

PART A — CORE PASSAGE: Leviticus 16:1–34 (Verse-by-Verse)

Leviticus 16:1

Narrative frame: “after the death of the two sons of Aaron” (referring to Lev 10). No new load-bearing term; establishes the mortal stakes of unauthorized approach to God’s presence — the interpretive key for the whole chapter’s mediation structure.

• Term: “drew near” / approach — Heb. קָרַב (qarab); LXX προσάγω. Literal meaning: “to come close, to approach.” Semantic range: cultic approach to the altar/sanctuary, often the root of קָרְבָּן (qorban, “offering,” lit. “that which is brought near”). English variants: “drew near,” “approached,” “offered.” Contextual theological meaning: approach to God’s presence is dangerous apart from the prescribed mediating ritual — the founding premise of the Day of Atonement. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “s’approcher/s’avancer”; risk is that French readers hear only a spatial/social nuance (“s’approcher de quelqu’un”) and miss the cultic-danger sense. Recommend a footnote linking to ch. 10.

Leviticus 16:2

• Term: mercy seat / atonement cover — Heb. כַּפֹּרֶת (kapporet), from the root כפר (kaphar, “to cover/atone”); LXX ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion). Literal meaning: “the covering/lid” (of the Ark of the Covenant). Semantic range: physical lid; by metonymy, the locus of atonement itself. English variants: “mercy seat” (KJV/ESV), “atonement cover” (NIV), “propitiatory” (Douay). Contextual theological meaning: the specific place where God’s presence meets the blood-borne atonement for the nation once a year. Direct LXX-to-NT bridge: this is the same Greek word (ἱλαστήριον) Paul uses of Christ in Romans 3:25 — Christ himself becomes the meeting-place of God’s presence and atoning blood. French rendering risk: High. Recommended rendering: “le propitiatoire” (established in Segond, TOB uses “le couvercle” but loses the technical link to Rom 3:25’s French rendering of ἱλαστήριον, which itself varies — Segond: “propitiatoire”). Recommend “propitiatoire” specifically to preserve consistency with whatever French rendering is chosen for ἱλαστήριον in Romans 3:25 material; flag for theologian review to confirm cross-document consistency.
• Term: veil — Heb. פָּרֹכֶת (parokhet); LXX καταπέτασμα. Literal meaning: “that which separates/divides.” Contextual theological meaning: the physical barrier signifying restricted access to God’s presence, later torn at Christ’s death (Matt 27:51, Heb 10:19-20). French rendering risk: Low. Render “voile” (le rideau du sanctuaire); stable term, minor risk of confusing with a bridal or literal veil (voile) without added context — a brief gloss recommended in teaching material.

Leviticus 16:3

• Term: sin offering — Heb. חַטָּאת (chatta’ah), same root as חטא (“to sin, to miss the mark”); LXX (τὸ) περὶ ἁμαρτίας. Literal meaning: “sin-thing” / “purification offering.” Semantic range: the specific sacrifice addressing sin’s defiling effect on persons and sanctuary. English variants: “sin offering,” “purification offering” (some modern scholarship). Contextual theological meaning: sin is not merely a moral failure but a defiling reality that contaminates sacred space and must be dealt with through substitutionary blood. This shares its Hebrew and LXX root with “sin” (חטא/ἁμαρτία), the baseline term rendered “péché” [BASELINE REUSE for the root concept]. French rendering risk: High. Recommend “sacrifice pour le péché.” Risk: French “péché” alone can trivialize (see baseline note on “péché mignon”); the compound phrase mitigates this by keeping the cultic weight, but must never be shortened to bare “offrande.”
• Term: burnt offering — Heb. עֹלָה (olah), from עלה (“to go up,” i.e., in smoke); LXX ὁλοκαύτωμα (holokautōma, “that which is wholly burnt”). Literal meaning: “ascending offering.” Semantic range: total, non-eaten consecration of the entire animal to God, symbolizing complete devotion/surrender. English variants: “burnt offering,” “whole burnt offering.” Contextual theological meaning: total substitutionary consecration distinct from the sin offering’s guilt-bearing focus. CRITICAL FRENCH RENDERING RISK. The traditional French rendering, inherited from Segond 1910 and the Vulgate’s holocaustum (itself a direct transliteration of the LXX’s ὁλοκαύτωμα), is “holocauste.” In contemporary French, “Holocauste” (capitalized) is the primary, almost exclusive referent for the Shoah — the Nazi genocide of European Jews — a subject of profound national gravity in France, which had its own Vichy-era complicity and retains one of Europe’s largest Jewish communities. Using “holocauste” for an animal sacrifice in study material risks: (a) triggering deep offense or confusion; (b) unintentionally implying a grotesque equivalence between a cultic rite and genocide; (c) obscuring the text’s actual meaning entirely, since modern readers will import the WWII referent by reflex. Risk: Critical. Recommended rendering: “sacrifice entièrement consumé” or “offrande consumée par le feu” (the choice made by Segond 21 and the NBS to retire “holocauste” from Bible translation for exactly this reason). Do not use “holocauste” anywhere in destination-language material without an explicit translator’s note; flag every occurrence for human theologian review.

Leviticus 16:4

• Term: holy garments / linen vestments — Heb. בִּגְדֵי־קֹדֶש (bigdei qodesh); LXX ἱμάτια ἅγια. Literal meaning: “garments of holiness.” Contextual theological meaning: the high priest approaches in simple undyed linen on this day (not his usual gold-adorned vestments, cf. Ex 28), signaling humility and purity rather than glory when bearing the nation’s guilt. French rendering risk: Low. “Vêtements sacrés/saints” — reuse [BASELINE REUSE: “saint”] as the qualifying adjective.
• Term: bathe (ritual washing) — Heb. רָחַץ (rachats); LXX λούω. Literal meaning: “to wash the body (with water).” Contextual theological meaning: purification preparatory to mediating access to God, distinct from ordinary hygiene. French rendering risk: Low. “Se laver/baigner le corps”; minor risk that French readers read this as mere hygiene rather than ritual preparation — a brief contextual note is sufficient.

Leviticus 16:5

• Term: congregation — Heb. עֵדָה (edah); LXX συναγωγή. Literal meaning: “assembly, gathered community.” Contextual theological meaning: the whole covenant people, represented corporately by the high priest’s actions. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “communauté/assemblée.” Avoid “synagogue,” which in French denotes the Jewish house of worship specifically and would be anachronistic and confusing in this context.

Leviticus 16:6

• Term: atonement (verb: to make atonement) — Heb. כִּפֵּר (kipper, Piel of כפר); LXX ἐξιλάσκομαι (exilaskomai). Literal meaning: contested etymology — either “to cover/wipe away” or “to appease/ransom” (related to כֹּפֶר, kopher, “ransom price”). Semantic range: covering, cleansing, ransoming, appeasing — the term deliberately holds together the ideas of removing defilement and satisfying a debt/offense. English variants: “make atonement,” “atone for,” “expiate.” Contextual theological meaning: the central theological action of the entire chapter and of the sacrificial system as a whole — God himself provides the means by which sin’s guilt and defilement are dealt with, restoring the relationship between a holy God and a sinful people. This is the pivot term for the doctrine “The Sacrificial System and Atonement.” French rendering risk: Critical. Recommended rendering: “expier / faire l’expiation” (noun: “l’expiation”) — the term used consistently across Segond, TOB, and Bible de Jérusalem for כפר, and for the LXX’s ἐξιλάσκομαι family. Risk factors: (1) secular French “expiation” carries a strong penal/legalistic connotation (serving a sentence, paying a debt to society) that can flatten the richer covering/cleansing sense; (2) English-language theology distinguishes “expiation” (dealing with sin) from “propitiation” (appeasing wrath) — this distinction does not map cleanly onto French vocabulary and must be handled by context, not by inventing a new term; (3) Catholic sacramental theology has its own doctrine of “expiation” through penance, which must not be read back into this OT ritual as if the goat’s blood were analogous to a penitential act performed by the sinner rather than a substitute provided by God. Rejected alternative: “réparation” (too weak — implies mere repair of damage, not the covering of guilt before a holy God) and “pardon” (conflates the atoning act with its resulting forgiveness — atonement is the basis, pardon is the consequence, and Leviticus is careful to keep these distinct).

Leviticus 16:7–9

• Term: tent of meeting — Heb. אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד (ohel mo’ed); LXX σκηνὴ τοῦ μαρτυρίου. Literal meaning: “tent of appointment/meeting.” Contextual theological meaning: the movable sanctuary where God meets his people through the mediating priesthood — the forerunner of “tabernacle” language reused throughout the book. French rendering risk: High. Render “tente de la Rencontre” (capitalized “Rencontre” as a technical term, following TOB convention) rather than the more common but risk-laden “tabernacle” (see Ch. 8 entry below for the full collision analysis). Using “tabernacle” here specifically risks Catholic Eucharistic-reservation associations at a moment when the text is describing the entrance restriction, which would badly confuse the theological point.
• Term: lots — Heb. גּוֹרָל (goral); LXX κλῆρος. Literal meaning: “lot” (a stone or marked object cast to make a decision). Contextual theological meaning: the outcome is treated as God’s own determination, not chance — cf. Prov 16:33. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “sort/tirer au sort.” Risk: secular French “le sort” can carry a fatalistic, impersonal-fate connotation (cf. baseline’s caution on “destin” for “calling” and “providence”); a clarifying note that this is understood as divinely directed, not random fate, is recommended.
• Term: Azazel — Heb. עֲזָאזֵל (azazel), a hapax legomenon of disputed etymology (possibly “God strengthens,” “goat that departs,” or a proper name for a wilderness demon/place, cf. later Second Temple literature such as 1 Enoch); LXX renders functionally as ἀποπομπαῖος (apopompaios, “the one sent away / the averter”), suggesting the LXX translators understood it as a description of function, not a proper name. English variants: “Azazel,” “the goat of removal,” “the scapegoat” (via the Vulgate’s caper emissarius, itself the direct ancestor of both English “scapegoat” and French “bouc émissaire”). Contextual theological meaning: this is the doctrinal anchor for “The Scapegoat and Substitution” — one goat represents the LORD’s claim (v.9), the other bears away the nation’s sin into the wilderness, dramatizing substitutionary transfer of guilt. French rendering risk: High — see full treatment under “Scapegoat” in the Core Glossary; the term “bouc émissaire” has become a fully secularized French idiom (any scapegoated person in an office dispute is called “le bouc émissaire”) which risks trivializing the ritual’s substitutionary theology into an everyday blame-shifting metaphor.

Leviticus 16:10

Reuses “atonement” (v.6) and “Azazel” (v.8); introduces:

• Term: wilderness — Heb. מִדְבָּר (midbar); LXX ἔρημος. Literal meaning: “uninhabited/desert place.” Contextual theological meaning: the place outside the camp, outside ordered covenant life, where sin is banished — a spatial theology of removal that recurs at v.27’s “outside the camp.” French rendering risk: Low. “Désert.” Stable term.

Leviticus 16:11

Reuses “sin offering” and “atonement” (vv. 3, 6); no new load-bearing term.

Leviticus 16:12–13

• Term: censer — Heb. מַחְתָּה (machtah); LXX πυρεῖον. Literal meaning: “fire-holder.” Low doctrinal weight; render “encensoir.” Risk: Low.
• Term: incense — Heb. קְטֹרֶת (qetoret); LXX θυμίαμα. Literal meaning: “that which is burned to produce smoke/fragrance.” Contextual theological meaning: the cloud of incense shields the high priest from the full manifestation of God’s glory over the atonement cover (v.13), underscoring the peril of unmediated divine presence. French rendering risk: Low. “Encens” — a term with positive continuity in French Catholic liturgical usage (incense at Mass), which here helpfully reinforces rather than undermines the sense of sacred approach, unlike several other terms in this chapter.
• Term: testimony (of the ark) — Heb. עֵדוּת (edut); LXX μαρτύριον. Literal meaning: “witness, testimony” — referring to the tablets of the Law within the Ark. Render “témoignage.” Risk: Low.

Leviticus 16:14

• Term: blood — Heb. דָּם (dam); LXX αἷμα. Literal meaning: “blood.” Semantic range: physical blood; by extension, life itself and the price/means of atonement (cf. ch. 17:11 below). Contextual theological meaning: blood is the ritual medium of atonement — not a magical substance but the visible sign of a life given in the place of the guilty. This is a doctrinally central term underlying the entire “Sacrificial System and Atonement” and “Day of Atonement” doctrines, and directly typologically anticipates the blood of Christ (Rom 3:25, 5:9 — outside this curriculum’s TM but a necessary cross-reference note for translators). French rendering risk: Medium. “Sang” is stable and non-controversial in French, but translators must ensure the substitutionary logic (a life given in place of another) is not lost by treating “sang” as a merely symbolic or ritual-cleansing agent divorced from the life-for-life principle.
• Term: sprinkle — Heb. הִזָּה (hizzah, Hiphil of נזה); LXX ῥαίνω/προσχέω. Literal meaning: “to spatter/sprinkle.” Contextual theological meaning: a specific, repeated (sevenfold) ritual action distinct from pouring or smearing, emphasizing thoroughness and divine prescription of exact ritual form. French rendering risk: Low. “Asperger/faire aspersion de sang” — note the term “aspersion” has a mild Catholic-liturgical resonance (holy water aspersion) that is not harmful here and may even aid comprehension.

Leviticus 16:15

Reuses “sin offering,” “blood,” “sprinkle” — now “for the people” rather than for the high priest himself, extending the same ritual logic corporately. No new term; flag for reviewers that the phrase “for the people” (לָעָם) must retain its collective, covenantal sense — not merely “for some individuals.”

Leviticus 16:16

• Term triad: uncleannesses / transgressions / sins — Heb. טֻמְאֹת (tumot, “uncleannesses”), פְּשָׁעִים (pesha’im, “rebellions/transgressions”), חַטֹּאת/חֲטָאִים (chata’im, “sins”); LXX ἀκαθαρσίαι, ἀσεβήματα, ἁμαρτίαι. Literal meanings: ritual defilement; willful rebellion; missing the mark/wrongdoing. Semantic range: together these three terms form a comprehensive taxonomy of Israel’s guilt — ceremonial, relational-covenantal, and moral — all requiring atonement. Contextual theological meaning: the Day of Atonement covers every category of guilt, not merely accidental ritual mistakes; this is theologically crucial for understanding the comprehensiveness of the atonement typologically fulfilled in Christ. French rendering risk: High. Recommend “impuretés, transgressions et péchés” preserving all three distinct nouns rather than collapsing them into a single generic “péchés,” which would flatten a deliberate theological distinction the Hebrew text is making.

Leviticus 16:17

• Term: assembly — Heb. קָהָל (qahal); LXX ἐκκλησία (note: this is the very Greek word behind the baseline’s “Church” term — an important etymological, though not doctrinal, continuity). Contextual theological meaning: the covenant assembly of Israel represented before God. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “assemblée,” explicitly avoiding “Église” [BASELINE REUSE CAUTION] — while the LXX word is the ancestor of ἐκκλησία, rendering OT qahal as “l’Église” would wrongly imply institutional continuity with the Christian church rather than the covenant nation of Israel gathered at Sinai/the sanctuary.

Leviticus 16:18–19

• Term: altar — Heb. מִזְבֵּחַ (mizbeach, from זבח “to slaughter”); LXX θυσιαστήριον. Literal meaning: “place of slaughter/sacrifice.” Render “autel.” Risk: Low, stable term.
• Term: consecrate — Heb. קִדֵּשׁ (qadash, Piel); LXX ἁγιάζω (hagiazō — same root as ἅγιος, “holy,” the baseline’s “saint”). Literal meaning: “to make holy, to set apart.” Contextual theological meaning: the atoning blood does not merely forgive people; it re-consecrates sacred space itself, defiled by proximity to a sinful people. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “consacrer/sanctifier” [shares root with BASELINE REUSE “saint”]. Caution: French “consécration” carries a strong, specific Catholic liturgical meaning (the moment the Eucharistic elements become Christ’s body and blood, “les paroles de la consécration”) — when used of priestly ordination or altar dedication in Leviticus, add brief context distinguishing the OT altar-consecration rite from the NT sacramental usage some readers will default to.

Leviticus 16:20–22

• Term: lay hands on — Heb. סָמַךְ יָדַיִם (samakh yadayim), “to lean/press both hands”; LXX ἐπιθήσει τὰς χεῖρας. Contextual theological meaning: a deliberate, physical act of ritual identification and transfer, distinguishing this goat’s function from the first goat’s blood-based atonement. French rendering risk: Low. “Poser/imposer les mains.” Note continuity with NT laying-on-of-hands practices (ordination, healing, blessing) — same phrase family, different function; a brief distinguishing note helps avoid conflation.
• Term: confess — Heb. הִתְוַדָּה (hitvadah, Hithpael of ידה, “to confess/acknowledge”); LXX ἐξαγορεύω. Literal meaning: “to acknowledge openly (one’s own guilt).” Contextual theological meaning: verbal acknowledgment of the specific content of the nation’s guilt precedes and accompanies its ritual transfer to the goat — confession names the sin rather than leaving guilt vague. French rendering risk: High. Render “confesser.” Major collision risk: the French Catholic sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is a specific, well-known formal rite (private confession to a priest, followed by absolution); French readers — Catholic, lapsed Catholic, and secular alike — will default to that frame. Translators must add a clarifying note that Lev 16:21 depicts the high priest’s own verbal confession over the goat, on the people’s behalf, not an individual believer’s private confession, and that no human absolution is pronounced — the goat itself bears the guilt away. This distinction matters directly for the doctrine “The Scapegoat and Substitution.”
• Term: bear (iniquity) — Heb. נָשָׂא (nasa), “to lift, carry, bear”; LXX λαμβάνω/ἀναφέρω. Contextual theological meaning: this is the same verb used of the Suffering Servant in Isaiah 53:4, 12 (“he has borne our griefs… he bore the sin of many”) — establishing a direct typological vocabulary link between the scapegoat ritual and the substitutionary suffering of the Servant, later applied to Christ. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “porter.” Risk is understating the weight-bearing, substitutionary force of the verb if translated with a weaker verb like “avoir” or “recevoir”; “porter” correctly retains the load-bearing physical/legal sense.
• Term: iniquities — Heb. עֲוֹנֹת (avonot), the third member of the guilt-triad (see v.16 above), specifically emphasizing crookedness/twistedness of moral character. Render “iniquités.” Risk: Medium (see triad note above).

Leviticus 16:23–25

Reuses “tent of meeting,” “bathe,” “burnt offering,” “atonement.” No new load-bearing term. Note for reviewers: v.24’s “make atonement for himself and for the people” reiterates the dual (priest + people) scope already established at v.6, reinforcing the mediatorial pattern central to “The Priesthood and Mediation.”

Leviticus 16:26

• Term: wash (clothes) — reuse of ritual purification vocabulary (see v.4). New nuance: contact with the goat that bore away the nation’s sin itself requires purification before re-entering the camp — underscoring that sin’s defiling power is contagious even in its removal. Risk: Low, purely reinforcing an established pattern.

Leviticus 16:27

• Term: outside the camp — Heb. מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה (michutz lamachaneh); LXX ἔξω τῆς παρεμβολῆς. Literal meaning: “outside the encampment.” Contextual theological meaning: the remains of the sin-offering animals, having borne the defilement of sin, must be disposed of outside the sacred community’s boundary. Direct NT bridge: Hebrews 13:11–13 explicitly draws on this language — “the bodies… are burned outside the camp… so Jesus also suffered outside the gate.” French rendering risk: Medium. Render “hors du camp.” This phrase should be flagged for cross-referencing in any teaching material connecting Leviticus 16 to Hebrews, since it is one of the clearest verbal links between the Day of Atonement ritual and the crucifixion narrative.

Leviticus 16:28

Reuses washing/purification vocabulary. No new term.

Leviticus 16:29

• Term: statute forever — Heb. חֻקַּת עוֹלָם (chuqqat olam); LXX νόμιμον αἰώνιον. Literal meaning: “an enduring/perpetual decree.” Contextual theological meaning: establishes the Day of Atonement as a fixed, repeated annual observance — the repetition itself becomes theologically significant later (Heb 9:25–26; 10:1–4 argue Christ’s sacrifice is superior precisely because it is not repeated). French rendering risk: Medium. Render “loi perpétuelle” / “prescription perpétuelle.” Note the potential (helpful) overlap with [BASELINE REUSE: “loi”] — appropriate here, since this is indeed part of the Mosaic “Loi” in the baseline’s sense.
• Term: afflict yourselves / self-denial — Heb. עִנִּיתֶם אֶת נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם (innitem et nafshoteichem), lit. “you shall afflict your souls” — traditionally understood by later Jewish practice as fasting. Contextual theological meaning: the day requires humble self-abasement, not celebratory feasting, appropriate to a solemn confrontation with corporate guilt. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “vous humilierez vous-mêmes / vous vous priverez” with a footnote on the traditional fasting association; do not render literally as “affliger votre âme,” which would sound obscure/awkward in French.
• Term: soul/life — Heb. נֶפֶש (nephesh); LXX ψυχή. Literal meaning: “living being, self, life.” Semantic range: not a disembodied “soul” in the Greek/Platonic sense but the whole living person. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “âme” only with caution — French “âme” carries strong dualistic (body vs. immortal soul) connotations from Catholic and Cartesian philosophical tradition that the Hebrew nephesh does not intend; “vous-mêmes / votre personne” is often a safer rendering than “âme” depending on context. This term recurs at 17:11 with even higher doctrinal weight (see below).

Leviticus 16:30

Reuses “atonement” and “clean/unclean” vocabulary. New nuance: “clean before the LORD from all your sins” ties the cleansing (טהר) explicitly to atonement (כפר) — the two concepts are related but distinct: atonement is the act; cleansing is (one of) its results. Risk: Medium — do not let the French rendering collapse “expiation” and “purification” into synonyms; keep them as sequential/related but distinct realities per the Hebrew.

Leviticus 16:31

• Term: Sabbath of solemn rest — Heb. שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן (shabbat shabbaton), an intensive/superlative construction, lit. “a sabbath of sabbath-ness.” Contextual theological meaning: the Day of Atonement is elevated to the same absolute-rest category as the weekly Sabbath itself — the most solemn possible cessation from ordinary labor, anchoring the doctrine “Sabbath and Sacred Time.” French rendering risk: Medium. Render “un sabbat, un jour de repos complet.” The intensive Hebrew construction has no perfect French grammatical equivalent; “repos complet/absolu” is recommended to convey the superlative force lost in a flat “sabbat.”

Leviticus 16:32

• Term: anointed — Heb. מָשׁוּחַ (mashuach, passive participle of משח, “to anoint” — the same root as מָשִׁיחַ, Mashiach, “Messiah”); LXX χριστός (christos!). Contextual theological meaning: the high priest’s anointing is the same verbal/conceptual root as “Messiah” and “Christ” — Leviticus’s anointed priesthood is a direct typological forerunner of the Anointed One. This is a major cross-reference: LXX χριστός here is the identical Greek word underlying the baseline’s [BASELINE REUSE: “Messie”] and Christ’s title generally. French rendering risk: High. Render “l’oint” / “le prêtre qui a reçu l’onction.” Flag for theologian review: this verse is an important teaching opportunity to connect Leviticus’s priesthood typologically to Christ (“l’Oint” = “le Christ”), but translators must not overstate the connection in the plain-sense rendering itself — the typology belongs in commentary/notes, not inserted into the base translation.
• Term: consecrated (ordained) — Heb. idiom מְלֻא־יָד (millu yad, lit. “whose hand is filled”) — an idiom for installation into priestly office, from the practice of filling the new priest’s hands with portions of the ordination offering (cf. ch. 8). Render “consacré/investi dans sa charge.” Risk: Medium — a literal rendering of “hand filled” would be opaque in French; use functional idiom “consacré comme prêtre” or “investi de la charge sacerdotale,” per the translation-memory pattern of non-literal, meaning-based rendering for cultural idioms.

Leviticus 16:33

Reuses “sanctuary” (a synonym context for the Holy Place, Heb. מִקְדָּש miqdash, LXX ἁγιάσμα, from the same “holy” root — render “sanctuaire,” Risk: Low), “tent of meeting,” “altar,” “priests,” “atonement.” No new load-bearing term; the verse functions as a summary recapitulation of the whole chapter’s fourfold scope (sanctuary, tent, altar, priests-and-people).

Leviticus 16:34

• Term: once in the year — Heb. אַחַת בַּשָּׁנָה (achat bashanah). Contextual theological meaning: the annual, repeated character of this atonement is later contrasted in Hebrews 9:25–28; 10:1–4, 10 with the “once for all” (ἅπαξ) finality of Christ’s sacrifice — this single phrase is the OT counterpart against which the entire book of Hebrews’ argument about the superiority of Christ’s sacrifice is built. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “une fois par an.” Flag for cross-curriculum consistency if any future Hebrews-curriculum package is built, since this phrase’s French rendering should be chosen to contrast cleanly with a French rendering of Hebrews’ “une fois pour toutes” (ἅπαξ, “once for all”).
• Term: as the LORD commanded — closing obedience formula, recurring dozens of times throughout Leviticus (cf. Ch. 8’s frequent refrain). Render “comme le SEIGNEUR l’avait ordonné à Moïse.” Risk: Low.

---

PART B — CHAPTER-BY-CHAPTER STUDY OF THE WHOLE BOOK

Chapter 1 — The Burnt Offering (עֹלָה)

• olah / burnt offering — see full treatment above (Ch.16, v.3). Risk: Critical (the “holocauste” collision applies throughout every occurrence of this term in the book, not only in ch. 16 — flag every chapter 1, 6–9, 16, 22–23 occurrence).
• laying on of hands (offerer’s own act) — Heb. סָמַךְ יָד (v.4), the offerer (not just the priest) identifies himself with the sacrifice. Render “poser la main.” Risk: Low.
• without blemish / unblemished — Heb. תָּמִים (tamim); LXX ἄμωμος. Literal meaning: “complete, without defect.” Contextual theological meaning: the animal offered must be the offerer’s best, unblemished — establishing a standard of costly, perfect substitution later fulfilled by Christ’s sinless perfection (cf. 1 Peter 1:19, outside this curriculum’s TM but a natural cross-reference). French rendering risk: Medium. Render “sans défaut” — recurs throughout the sacrificial chapters and again for priestly qualification in ch. 21–22 (see below).
• pleasing/sweet aroma — Heb. רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ (reach nichoach); LXX ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας. Literal meaning: “a smell of soothing/rest” (from נוח, “to rest, be quiet” — the same root as נֹחַ, Noah). Contextual theological meaning: an anthropomorphic idiom expressing God’s acceptance/satisfaction with the offering, not literal divine appetite for smoke. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “parfum agréable / odeur agréable au SEIGNEUR.” Risk: overly literal rendering (“odeur de repos”) would be baffling in French; must convey acceptance/pleasure, not a literal scent-based transaction.

Chapter 2 — The Grain Offering (מִנְחָה)

• minchah / grain offering — Heb. מִנְחָה; LXX θυσία/δῶρον. Literal meaning: “gift, tribute” (used elsewhere of a tribute paid to a superior). Contextual theological meaning: a bloodless offering of the fruit of one’s labor, expressing homage and dependence, distinct from the atoning/substitutionary sacrifices. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “offrande végétale/de céréales.” Risk: bare “offrande” is too generic and could be confused with any of the other four sacrifice types; the qualifier is necessary.
• frankincense — Heb. לְבֹנָה (levonah); LXX λίβανος. Render “encens/oliban.” Risk: Low, positive continuity with Catholic liturgical incense usage and with the Magi’s gift narrative (Matt 2:11), aiding rather than hindering comprehension.
• salt of the covenant — Heb. מֶלַח בְּרִית (melach berit); LXX ἅλας διαθήκης. Contextual theological meaning: salt as a preservative and covenant-sealing agent (cf. Num 18:19), evoking permanence and fidelity. [BASELINE REUSE: “alliance” for covenant/berit]. French rendering risk: Low. Render “le sel de l’alliance.” A pleasant resonance: French culinary culture’s association of salt with preservation/value (“valoir son pesant de sel”) can be leveraged positively in teaching, not just neutrally noted.
• firstfruits — Heb. רֵאשִׁית/בִּכּוּרִים (reshit/bikkurim); LXX πρωτογενήματα. Render “prémices.” Risk: Low.

Chapter 3 — The Peace/Fellowship Offering (שְׁלָמִים)

• shelamim / peace offering — Heb. שְׁלָמִים (shelamim), from שָׁלוֹם (shalom, “peace/wholeness”); LXX θυσία σωτηρίου (thysia sōtēriou, lit. “sacrifice of salvation/deliverance” — note the σωτηρ- root, directly sharing the LXX vocabulary behind the baseline’s [BASELINE REUSE: “salut”/salvation]). Literal meaning: “offering(s) of well-being/wholeness.” Semantic range: a shared, celebratory sacrifice in which offerer, priest, and God all receive a portion — the only sacrifice type that is eaten communally by the worshiper. Contextual theological meaning: it depicts restored fellowship/communion between God and worshiper following atonement, anticipating table-fellowship themes fulfilled at the Lord’s Table. French rendering risk: High. Recommended rendering: “sacrifice de communion” (TOB/modern convention; older Segond 1910 uses “sacrifice d’actions de grâces” for a subtype). Risk factors: (1) bare “communion,” per the baseline’s own caution on “fellowship,” is heard first as the Eucharist — but here the risk is more acute because the underlying concept (a sacrifice eaten in fellowship with God) genuinely resembles Eucharistic theology; (2) Catholic doctrine explicitly describes the Mass itself as a “sacrifice” (Council of Trent, Session 22) re-presenting Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice — a live Reformation-era flashpoint (Protestant traditions reject “the Mass as sacrifice” language). Teaching material must clarify that the OT shelamim is a type/shadow pointing forward, not a source of warrant for a particular view of the Eucharist as an ongoing propitiatory sacrifice; flag for theologian review wherever this term intersects with Eucharistic doctrine discussion.
• fat (forbidden to eat) — Heb. חֵלֶב (chelev); LXX στέαρ. Render “graisse.” Risk: Low.

Chapter 4 — The Sin Offering for Unintentional Sin

• chatta’ah / sin offering — full treatment above (Ch.16 v.3). Additional nuance here: the sliding-scale provision (bull for the high priest/whole congregation, male goat for a leader, female goat or lamb for a commoner, and in ch.5 birds or flour for the poor) shows the sacrificial system scaled to ability, not a flat fee — theologically significant for grace-shaped provision, though this is conveyed through narrative structure rather than a single lexical item. Risk: Medium, ensure teaching notes make the sliding-scale provision explicit rather than letting readers assume a uniform “price” for atonement.
• unintentionally / through error — Heb. בִּשְׁגָגָה (bishgagah, from שגה, “to go astray, err”); LXX ἀκουσίως/κατὰ ἄγνοιαν. Literal meaning: “in error, unwittingly.” Contextual theological meaning: this chapter’s sacrifices address inadvertent sin — the system also assumes some sins are deliberate/defiant and are not covered by this sacrifice (cf. Num 15:30–31, outside Leviticus but essential background), a distinction with real stakes for how “atonement” is later understood not to cover unrepentant, willful rebellion. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “par erreur / sans intention.” Flag as a useful qualifying note wherever “sin offering” appears, to prevent readers assuming all sin whatsoever is automatically covered by ritual sacrifice regardless of the sinner’s disposition.

Chapter 5 — The Guilt/Reparation Offering (אָשָׁם) and Sliding-Scale Provision

• asham / guilt offering — Heb. אָשָׁם (asham); LXX τὸ πλημμέλημα / περὶ πλημμελείας. Literal meaning: “guilt, offense, that which is owed on account of guilt.” Semantic range: distinct from the chatta’ah in that it specifically addresses sins involving a quantifiable debt or violation of another’s rights (sacrilege, deception, theft), requiring restitution plus sacrifice. Contextual theological meaning: sin against God is here shown to have real, measurable social/economic consequences requiring both vertical (sacrificial) and horizontal (restitution) resolution. French rendering risk: Medium. Recommended rendering: “sacrifice de réparation” (TOB). Risk: without the “réparation” qualifier, readers will conflate it entirely with the chatta’ah (“sacrifice pour le péché”), losing Leviticus’s own careful distinction between the two offering types.
• restitution — Heb. הֵשִׁיב (heshiv, “to return/restore”) plus a required added-fifth penalty; render “restitution/réparation.” Risk: Low.

Chapters 6–7 — Priestly Regulations, Portions, and Perpetual Fire

No new sacrifice-type terms (these chapters give priestly procedural instructions for the offerings already introduced in chs. 1–5); load-bearing procedural terms:

• perpetual fire — Heb. אֵש תָּמִיד (esh tamid); LXX πῦρ… διὰ παντός. Contextual theological meaning: the altar fire must never be extinguished, symbolizing unceasing access to atonement/worship provided for the covenant community. Render “feu perpétuel/continuel.” Risk: Low.
• wave offering — Heb. תְּנוּפָה (tenufah, from נוף, “to wave/brandish”); LXX ἐπίθεμα. Render “offrande par élévation” or “geste de présentation.” Risk: Low.
• contribution/heave offering — Heb. תְּרוּמָה (terumah, from רום, “to lift up”); LXX ἀφαίρεμα. Render “prélèvement/offrande de prélèvement.” Risk: Low. These two closely related ritual-gesture terms are frequently confused even by specialists; a brief glossary note distinguishing them (waving before the altar vs. setting aside a priestly portion) is worthwhile but the doctrinal risk to the destination audience is minor.

Chapter 8 — The Ordination of Aaron and His Sons

• consecration/ordination — Heb. מִלֻּאִים (milluim, lit. “fillings,” referring to the ordination ritual, “the days of his hand being filled” — cf. Ch.16 v.32 idiom); LXX τελείωσις. Contextual theological meaning: institutes the mediating priesthood formally, the doctrinal foundation of “The Priesthood and Mediation.” French rendering risk: High. Render “consécration / ordination sacerdotale.” Caution: “ordination” in French is closely associated with the specific Catholic and Orthodox sacrament of Holy Orders (episcopal laying on of hands, apostolic succession); readers will likely map Aaron’s ordination onto that specific sacramental frame. A clarifying note distinguishing the OT hereditary Aaronic priesthood — later argued in Hebrews (outside this TM but essential background) to be superseded by Christ’s unique priesthood “after the order of Melchizedek” — from any subsequent Christian ordained-ministry office is recommended wherever this doctrine is taught.
• anointing oil — Heb. מִשְׁחָה / שֶׁמֶן הַמִּשְׁחָה (mishchah / shemen hamishchah); LXX ἔλαιον χρίσματος (note χρίσμα, the root of χριστός/“Christ”!). Render “huile d’onction.” Risk: Medium — same Messianic-typology cross-reference noted above at Ch.16 v.32; keep the typological connection in commentary, not the base text.
• tabernacle — Heb. מִשְׁכָּן (mishkan, “dwelling place,” from שכן, “to dwell” — cf. later rabbinic Shekhinah); LXX σκηνή. Contextual theological meaning: the movable sanctuary as God’s dwelling among his people. French rendering risk: High. This is one of the most significant single-word collisions in the whole book alongside “holocauste.” In French, “le tabernacle” in ordinary and especially Catholic usage refers overwhelmingly to the small cabinet on or near the altar in a Catholic church where the consecrated Host (the reserved Blessed Sacrament) is kept — a specific, visually familiar object to any French Catholic or lapsed Catholic reader. Using “tabernacle” for the OT mishkan risks readers picturing a small altar-side cupboard instead of an entire tent-shrine complex the size of a small building. Recommended handling: use “le tabernacle” only with an immediate clarifying phrase on first use in each unit (“le tabernacle, la tente-sanctuaire mobile d’Israël dans le désert”) and prefer “la tente de la Rencontre” (ohel mo’ed) as the primary working term in narrative contexts, reserving “tabernacle” for contexts explicitly discussing the structure by that traditional name. Flag every occurrence for native speaker review at minimum, theologian review where doctrinal weight is high (e.g., discussions of God’s presence/dwelling).

Chapter 9 — Aaron’s First Sacrifices; the Glory of the LORD Appears

• glory of the LORD — Heb. כְּבוֹד־יְהוָה (kevod-YHWH); LXX δόξα κυρίου. [BASELINE REUSE: “gloire” / “Dieu”]. Contextual theological meaning: the visible, fire-consuming manifestation of God’s presence confirms that the sacrificial system just instituted is accepted — divine ratification of the entire mediatorial structure. French rendering risk: Low (already established via baseline); simply confirm consistent capitalization and usage per baseline “gloire” entry.
• fire from the LORD — a theophanic confirmation motif; no separate glossary term required beyond “glory”/“fire” already covered; note narrative significance for reviewers (contrast with ch.10’s “strange fire,” below).

Chapter 10 — Nadab and Abihu; the Holy/Common, Clean/Unclean Distinction

• strange fire / unauthorized fire — Heb. אֵש זָרָה (esh zarah); LXX πῦρ ἀλλότριον. Literal meaning: “foreign/unauthorized fire.” Contextual theological meaning: worship offered on human initiative rather than divine prescription is not neutral but dangerous — establishes the seriousness of mediating access to God addressed throughout the book. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “feu étranger/non autorisé.” Risk: “étranger” alone might read as merely “foreign-sourced” (geographic) rather than “unauthorized/illegitimate” — a clarifying gloss is useful.
• Holy and common; clean and unclean — Heb. קֹדֶש/חֹל (qodesh/chol), טָמֵא/טָהוֹר (tamei/tahor); LXX ἅγιον/βέβηλον, ἀκάθαρτον/καθαρόν. This verse (10:10) is the closest thing Leviticus has to an explicit statement of its own organizing categories, and functions as the didactic key to chs. 11–15’s entire clean/unclean legislation. Contextual theological meaning: two independent axes — sacred/ordinary (a status of relation to God) and clean/unclean (a status of ritual fitness) — that intersect but are not identical; a thing can be “common and clean” (ordinary daily life) or “holy and clean” (fit for sacred use) etc. French rendering risk: High. Render “distinguer le saint et le profane [BASELINE REUSE: “saint”], le pur et l’impur.” This is the single most important verse for correctly calibrating the “Clean and Unclean” and “Holiness of God” doctrines together; flag for theologian review given how easily French readers (with either a Catholic ritual-purity background or a secular readership with no purity-code intuition at all) can collapse the two axes into one.

Chapter 11 — Clean and Unclean Animals

• clean/unclean (dietary) — Heb. טָהוֹר/טָמֵא (tahor/tamei); LXX καθαρόν/ἀκάθαρτον. Contextual theological meaning: dietary distinctions functioning as a pedagogical, identity-marking boundary for Israel, not (per the text’s own logic) a claim about the animals’ inherent moral status. French rendering risk: High. Render “pur/impur.” Risk factors: (1) secular French “pur/impur” carries strong chemical-purity connotations (a “produit pur,” “eau pure”) that can mislead toward a hygienic/scientific reading rather than a theological-symbolic one; (2) risk of moralizing the categories — teaching material must clarify these are ritual-symbolic categories, not equivalent to moral guilt/sin ([BASELINE REUSE: “péché”] must be kept conceptually distinct from ritual “impur” throughout); (3) some French Catholic readers may (incorrectly) map this onto Catholic “état de grâce”/mortal-sin purity language, which is a different theological category altogether.
• detestable / abomination-adjacent term — Heb. שֶׁקֶץ (sheqetz); LXX βδέλυγμα. Render “chose abominable/répugnante.” Risk: Medium — avoid rendering with a term implying the animals themselves are evil; the category is ritual-symbolic, not a claim about creation’s inherent goodness (cf. Gen 1’s “it was good,” outside this book but essential background for avoiding a dualistic misreading).
• swarming things — Heb. שֶׁרֶץ (sherets); LXX ἑρπετόν. Render “bêtes grouillantes/qui se meuvent en foule.” Risk: Low.

Chapter 12 — Purification After Childbirth

• uncleanness (childbirth-specific) — extends טֻמְאָה (tumah) already introduced; no new root term, but a new application worth flagging: purification here is explicitly not a statement about childbirth being sinful or shameful (children/fertility are consistently blessed elsewhere in the Torah) but about a category of ritual impurity connected to blood/bodily processes generally (cf. ch. 15). French rendering risk: Medium. Ensure teaching material makes clear “impureté rituelle” (ritual impurity) is not “péché” (moral sin) — a distinction easily lost on a French readership unfamiliar with the ritual-purity/moral-guilt distinction that operates differently than in modern Western ethical categories.
• days of purifying — Heb. יְמֵי טֹהֳרָה (yemei tohorah). Render “jours de purification.” Risk: Low.

Chapter 13 — Diagnosis of Skin Disease

• tsara’at (“leprosy”/skin disease) — Heb. צָרַעַת (tsara’at); LXX λέπρα. Literal meaning: a general term for a range of skin conditions, not equivalent to modern clinical Hansen’s disease (leprosy). Semantic range: also extended metaphorically to mold/mildew on fabric and stone (see ch. 14). Contextual theological meaning: a visible, potentially spreading defilement requiring priestly diagnostic authority — a striking instance where the priest functions as something like a public-health examiner, illustrating the breadth of the mediating priestly office (relevant to “The Priesthood and Mediation”). French rendering risk: Medium. Recommended rendering: “maladie de peau (traditionnellement traduite « lèpre »).” Risk: using the bare traditional “lèpre” risks (a) medical inaccuracy/confusion with modern Hansen’s disease, and (b) unintended stigmatization of contemporary leprosy patients in francophone regions (parts of Francophone Africa still have active Hansen’s disease public health programs) if the text is read as implying divine judgment on the sufferers rather than a ritual-symbolic category.
• priest’s declarative role (pronounce clean/unclean) — the priest’s verdictory function (טָהֵר/טִמֵּא as declarative verbs, “he shall pronounce…clean/unclean”) is a load-bearing structural feature of the whole clean/unclean legal system and directly supports “The Priesthood and Mediation” doctrine: the priest does not create the condition but authoritatively recognizes and names it, paralleling later prophetic/apostolic authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 16:19, outside this TM but a useful cross-reference). Risk: Medium.

Chapter 14 — Cleansing Rites for Skin Disease and Houses

No new theological vocabulary beyond ch. 13’s tsara’at/clean-unclean framework. This chapter introduces ceremonial objects used in the cleansing rite (cedar wood, scarlet yarn, hyssop, two birds) — these are ritual props rather than independent load-bearing doctrinal terms and do not require separate glossary entries; render literally (“bois de cèdre,” “fil/laine écarlate,” “hysope”) with no special risk flag beyond ensuring botanical/technical accuracy.

Chapter 15 — Bodily Discharges and Uncleanness

No new root theological vocabulary; extends the טָמֵא/טָהוֹר (tamei/tahor) and טֻמְאָה (tumah) framework already fully treated at chs. 10–12 to a further category of bodily emissions. Flag for reviewers only as a reuse-context: this chapter’s material is sometimes the most likely in the whole book to be skipped or softened in teaching due to its explicit content; the translation requirement is simply consistent, non-euphemistic-but-tactful use of the already-established “pur/impur” vocabulary, not new terminology.

Chapter 16 — The Day of Atonement

Fully treated verse-by-verse in Part A above. Summary doctrinal terms fixed in this chapter for reuse: כפר/expiation, כַּפֹּרֶת/propitiatoire, עֲזָאזֵל/bouc émissaire (Azazel), the guilt-triad (impuretés/transgressions/péchés), שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן/repos complet, “hors du camp.”

Chapter 17 — The Prohibition of Eating Blood; Life in the Blood

• life is in the blood — Leviticus 17:11, “For the life (נֶפֶש, nephesh) of every creature is its blood (דָּם, dam); I have given it to you to make atonement (כפר) for your souls (נֶפֶש) upon the altar; it is the blood, by the life (נֶפֶש), that makes atonement.” LXX: ψυχή/αἷμα/ἐξιλάσκομαι. This is arguably the single most theologically explicit verse in the whole book on why blood atones: not because blood is intrinsically magical, but because it represents a forfeited life given in the place of the guilty party’s own forfeit life. Contextual theological meaning: this is the direct conceptual foundation for the entire NT doctrine that “without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins” (Heb 9:22, outside this TM but essential cross-reference) and for Christ’s blood as the basis of atonement in Romans 3:25 and 5:9. French rendering risk: Critical. Every term in this verse (âme/vie for nephesh, sang for dam, expiation for kipper) has already been separately flagged above; their combination in this single programmatic verse means the whole verse must be flagged as a unit for theologian review — it functions as Leviticus’s own internal doctrinal statement on atonement and must not be paraphrased loosely.

Chapter 18 — Sexual Holiness Laws

• “uncover nakedness” (euphemism for sexual relations) — Heb. גִּלָּה עֶרְוָה (galah ervah); LXX ἀποκαλύπτω ἀσχημοσύνην. Contextual theological meaning: frames sexual ethics within the holiness/purity framework already established, not as a separate secular-ethical category. French rendering risk: Medium. A literal French rendering (“découvrir la nudité”) functions adequately as an equivalent euphemism and is the standard rendering across French Bible traditions; risk is primarily one of register (avoid clinical or crude alternatives) rather than doctrinal distortion.

Chapter 19 — The Holiness Code; Love of Neighbor

• “Be holy, for I the LORD your God am holy” — Heb. קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם; LXX ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος κύριος ὁ θεὸς ὑμῶν. [BASELINE REUSE: “saint”] for both the divine attribute and the human calling — note the LXX’s ἅγιος is the identical word behind the whole Romans “saints”/holiness word-family already fixed in the baseline. Contextual theological meaning: this is the foundational statement for “The Holiness of God and the Call to Be Holy” — human holiness is not self-generated but is a derivative reflection of, and response to, God’s own prior holiness. French rendering risk: High (inherited directly from baseline’s existing High-risk flag on “saint”/“saints”). Reinforce per baseline note: French Catholic and popular usage of “saint” defaults to canonized individuals; this verse’s command to the whole people (“soyez saints”) must be clearly rendered as addressed to the entire covenant community, matching the baseline’s clarifying-gloss guidance for “saints” in Romans 1:7.
• “Love your neighbor as yourself” — Heb. וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ (ve’ahavta lere’akha kamokha); LXX ἀγαπήσεις τὸν πλησίον σου ὡς σεαυτόν — the exact LXX wording quoted verbatim by Jesus (Matt 22:39; Mark 12:31) and by Paul in Romans 13:9, making this verse a direct textual link between this curriculum and the Romans baseline. Terms: neighbor — Heb. רֵעַ (rea); LXX ὁ πλησίον, lit. “the one near/close” — render “prochain” (the long-established, stable French Bible term, used identically in every French Bible tradition for this verse and its NT citations; Risk: Low, exceptionally stable). love — Heb. אָהַב (ahav); LXX ἀγαπάω (ἀγαπήσεις) — render “aimer.” Risk: Low for the verb itself, but Medium for the doctrine as a whole: contemporary secular French “aimer” is heavily loaded with romantic/emotional connotations (amour-passion) that can obscure the volitional, covenantal, action-oriented sense of ahav/agapē in this legal-covenantal context (the surrounding verses specify concrete actions: not gleaning every corner of a field, not defrauding a hired worker, not slandering, etc.) — teaching material should anchor “love” here in its concrete behavioral outworking, not sentiment alone.
• stranger/sojourner — Heb. גֵּר (ger); LXX πάροικος/προσήλυτος. Contextual theological meaning: Lev 19:33–34 extends the neighbor-love command explicitly to the resident foreigner (“love him as yourself, for you were sojourners in Egypt”), directly relevant to the Love of Neighbor doctrine’s full scope. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “l’étranger (qui réside/séjourne parmi vous).” In contemporary France, “étranger” carries live, contested political connotations around immigration; teaching material addressing this passage should be sensitive to how readily this ancient legal-ethical command will be heard as commentary on a live contemporary debate, without either suppressing or overstating that resonance.

Chapter 20 — Penalties for Violating the Holiness Code

• profane (the LORD’s name/the sanctuary) — Heb. חִלֵּל (chillel, Piel of חלל, “to pierce/defile,” antonym of קדש); LXX βεβηλόω. Contextual theological meaning: the direct antonym-action to “consecrate” (v.19 above) — treating as ordinary/violated what God has set apart as holy. French rendering risk: Medium. Render “profaner.” Stable, well-established French theological term (cf. “profaner un lieu saint”); low risk of secular drift, though ensure the specific referent (God’s name/holy things) is clear rather than a generic “disrespect.”
• cut off — Heb. כָּרַת (karat, “to cut, sever” — the same verbal root underlying כָּרַת בְּרִית, “to cut a covenant” [intersecting with BASELINE REUSE: “alliance”]); LXX ἐξολεθρεύω/ἀπόλλυμι. Contextual theological meaning: a punishment formula denoting exclusion from the covenant community (and/or capital punishment, depending on context) — the negative counterpart to covenant inclusion. French rendering risk: Low-Medium. Render “retrancher (du peuple).” Note for reviewers the ironic etymological echo with covenant-making (“couper une alliance” is itself an attested idiom in some French renderings of ancient covenant ritual) — worth a brief explanatory note but not a rendering change.

Chapters 21–22 — Priestly Holiness Standards; Unblemished Offerings

• blemish/defect — Heb. מוּם (mum); LXX μῶμος. Literal meaning: “physical defect, flaw.” Contextual theological meaning: disqualifying physical defects for both priests serving and animals offered establish a consistent standard of wholeness/perfection befitting approach to a holy God — directly typologically anticipating Christ as the priest and sacrifice “without blemish” (again, 1 Peter 1:19 and Hebrews language outside this TM, but essential background). French rendering risk: Medium. Render “défaut/tare (physique).” Caution: modern disability-rights sensitivity in French public discourse requires teaching material to frame this carefully — the text’s concern is cultic-symbolic (wholeness as a sign pointing toward God’s own perfection), not a statement about the inherent worth of persons with disabilities; add an explanatory note wherever this chapter is taught directly.
• unblemished/perfect — Heb. תָּמִים (tamim), reuse from ch. 1. Risk: Medium (same as above).

Chapter 23 — The Appointed Feasts and Sacred Times

• appointed times/feasts — Heb. מוֹעֲדִים (mo’adim, plural of מוֹעֵד, “appointed time/meeting” — same root as “tent of meeting,” ohel mo’ed); LXX ἑορταί. Render “fêtes/solennités” or “temps fixés.” Risk: Medium. These are God-appointed, not human-invented, festivals — the French “fêtes” risks a purely festive/cultural-holiday connotation (as in “les fêtes de fin d’année”) that undersells the covenantal, divinely-instituted character; “temps fixés par le SEIGNEUR” is a useful supplementary phrase in didactic contexts.
• holy convocation — Heb. מִקְרָא־קֹדֶש (miqra qodesh); LXX κλητὴ ἁγία. [BASELINE REUSE: “saint”]. Render “sainte convocation / sainte assemblée.” Risk: Medium, consistent with baseline’s general caution on “saint” needing corporate, not elite-individual, framing.
• Sabbath — Heb. שַׁבָּת (shabbat); LXX σάββατον. Fully formalized here as part of the festival calendar (23:3). Contextual theological meaning: the doctrinal anchor for “Sabbath and Sacred Time” — weekly rhythm of consecrated rest embedded in the created order (cf. Gen 2:2–3, outside this book) and covenant sign (Ex 31:16–17). French rendering risk: Medium-High. Render “sabbat.” Risk factors: (1) France’s strong laïcité (secular) public culture and its historic (Catholic-shaped, now largely secularized) Sunday-rest tradition can cause readers to default to “dimanche” associations rather than recognizing the specifically Saturday, Israel-specific Sabbath referent; (2) France’s significant Jewish community means “le sabbat/shabbat” is also a live, contemporary, publicly recognized term for a currently-practiced observance — an asset for comprehension, but teaching material must be careful to distinguish the OT institution under discussion from contemporary Jewish religious practice as such, avoiding either appropriation or an implication that this curriculum is offering a normative statement about present-day Jewish observance.
• Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), Passover, Feast of Weeks, Feast of Tabernacles/Booths — Heb. יוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים (Yom HaKippurim), פֶּסַח (Pesach), שָׁבֻעוֹת (Shavuot), סֻכּוֺת (Sukkot). Render “le Jour des Expiations / Yom Kippour,” “la Pâque,” “la fête des Semaines / Pentecôte,” “la fête des Tentes / des Cabanes / Souccot.” Risk: Medium. Note for reviewers: “Yom Kippour” is itself a term with live, positive recognition value in French society given its Jewish community, arguably reducing (compared to many target languages) the risk of total unfamiliarity; the translation task here is less about avoiding a false-association collision and more about ensuring readers understand the Christian theological reading (fulfillment in Christ per the doctrine list) is being taught, not simply an anthropological description of a Jewish holiday, nor a supersessionist dismissal of it. Handle with historical and interfaith sensitivity per the baseline’s general caution on “Israël.”

Chapter 24 — The Lampstand, Showbread, and Blasphemy Law

• lampstand — Heb. מְנוֹרָה (menorah); LXX λυχνία. Render “lampadaire/chandelier (à sept branches).” Risk: Low. The menorah is also a positively-recognized, publicly familiar symbol in French society (Jewish community, public Hanukkah displays); minimal collision risk, and can be a helpful visual anchor in teaching.
• bread of the Presence / showbread — Heb. לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים (lechem hapanim, lit. “bread of the face/presence”); LXX ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως. Render “le pain de la Présence” (TOB-style) rather than the older Segond “pains de proposition,” which is opaque to modern French readers. Risk: Medium — largely a comprehension risk (archaic vocabulary), not a doctrinal collision risk.
• blaspheme (the Name) — Heb. נָקַב/קִלֵּל אֶת־הַשֵּׁם (constructions using נקב “to pierce/curse” or קלל “to curse, treat lightly”); LXX βλασφημέω/καταράομαι. Render “blasphémer / maudire le Nom.” Risk: Medium. Ensure the referent (“the Name,” a reverential circumlocution for the divine name) is understood, not merely “insulting speech” generically.

Chapter 25 — Sabbath Year, Jubilee, and Redemption

• Sabbath year — Heb. שְׁמִטָּה (shemittah, “release,” from שמט, “to let drop/release”); LXX ἄφεσις. Render “année sabbatique.” Risk: Medium.
• Jubilee — Heb. יוֹבֵל (yovel, possibly from the ram’s-horn trumpet that announces it); LXX ἄφεσις/ἐνιαυτὸς ἀφέσεως (note: same ἄφεσις root elsewhere translated “forgiveness/release of sins” in the NT — a rich cross-reference for teaching, e.g. Luke 4:18–19’s citation of Isaiah 61’s “liberty,” itself evoking Jubilee imagery). Contextual theological meaning: a fifty-year cycle of land restoration, debt cancellation, and slave release, embodying God’s concern for economic justice and covenant restoration within Israel’s social order. French rendering risk: Medium-High. Render “le jubilé.” Risk: French Catholic tradition has its own well-established “Année jubilaire” / “Jubilé” (Holy Years, traditionally associated with pilgrimage and plenary indulgences, most recently the 2025 Jubilee Year), which is a specific and different institution readers may default to. A clarifying note distinguishing the OT Levitical Jubilee (land/debt/slave release, a fixed 50-year agrarian-economic institution) from the Catholic Holy Year institution (a papally-proclaimed spiritual/pilgrimage observance) is recommended wherever this doctrine is taught in detail.
• redemption — Heb. גְּאֻלָּה (ge’ulah); LXX λύτρωσις. redeemer (kinsman-redeemer) — Heb. גֹּאֵל (go’el); LXX ὁ ἀγχιστεύς / ὁ λυτρωτής. Contextual theological meaning: the legal-economic institution of a near relative buying back family land or a family member from debt-slavery, providing the direct socio-legal background for the NT’s fuller soteriological title “Redeemer” applied to Christ. French rendering risk: High. Render “rédemption” / “rédempteur.” Risk: the rich, well-established NT-derived French theological weight of “Rédempteur” (a title for Christ) can cause readers to import that full Christological freight backward into this text’s much more mundane legal-economic institution (a relative buying back a field or a person from debt), potentially either (a) over-spiritualizing Leviticus 25’s practical instructions, or (b) under-appreciating how directly this concrete social institution shapes the meaning of the NT title. Recommend a note clarifying the socio-legal background before drawing the Christological typology explicitly.
• liberty/release — Heb. דְּרוֹר (deror, Lev 25:10, “proclaim liberty throughout the land”); LXX ἄφεσις. Render “liberté/libération.” Risk: Low-Medium. Note the resonance with Isaiah 61:1/Luke 4:18’s “libérer les captifs,” another useful cross-reference for teaching Christ’s fulfillment of Jubilee themes.

Chapter 26 — Covenant Blessings and Curses

• blessing — Heb. בְּרָכָה (berakhah); LXX εὐλογία. Render “bénédiction.” Risk: Low.
• curse — Heb. קְלָלָה (qelalah); LXX κατάρα. Render “malédiction.” Risk: Low.
• covenant — [BASELINE REUSE: “alliance”], applied here to the Sinai covenant’s blessing/curse sanctions structure (cf. also Deut 28, outside this book). Risk: Medium (inherited from baseline’s existing Medium flag), noting that this chapter is one of the book’s clearest presentations of covenant as a relational bond with real stipulated consequences, not a bare legal contract — reinforcing the baseline’s own rationale for preferring “alliance” over “contrat.”

Chapter 27 — Vows and Valuations

• vow — Heb. נֵדֶר (neder); LXX εὐχή. Render “vœu.” Risk: Medium. Caution: French Catholic religious life (monastic/clerical vows of poverty, chastity, obedience) is the dominant contemporary association of “vœu(x)” in a religious register; a brief clarifying note that Lev 27’s vows are voluntary personal dedications of property/persons/animals to the LORD, structurally distinct from institutional religious-life vows, is useful though the core concept (a voluntary binding promise to God) is genuinely continuous rather than contradictory.
• valuation — Heb. עֵרֶך (erekh, “assessed value,” from a root meaning “to arrange/set in order”); LXX τιμή. Render “estimation/valeur (fixée par le prêtre).” Risk: Low.
• devoted thing — Heb. חֵרֶם (cherem); LXX ἀνάθεμα (note: this is the direct ancestor of the NT’s “anathema”!). Literal meaning: something irrevocably set apart/devoted to the LORD, in some contexts (elsewhere in the Torah, e.g. conquest narratives) implying total destruction, here (Lev 27:28-29) implying irrevocable dedication without possibility of redemption/buy-back. Contextual theological meaning: represents the most absolute, non-negotiable category of consecration in the whole book — a useful contrast case for teaching the more common redeemable categories of holiness discussed elsewhere in Leviticus. French rendering risk: Medium-High. Render “chose vouée/consacrée (de manière irrévocable).” Caution: avoid the transliterated “anathème” as the primary rendering in narrative Bible text, since in French “anathème” now functions almost entirely as a term for formal ecclesiastical excommunication/condemnation (a live term in Catholic canon law and in general polemical usage, “jeter l’anathème sur quelqu’un”) — using it here would import a strongly negative-judicial connotation absent from this specific property-dedication context. Reserve “anathème” for glossary/etymological notes only.

---

Summary Cross-Reference Table: Chapters Producing No New Load-Bearing Terms

Chapter	Status
14	No new theological vocabulary; reuses ch. 13’s tsara’at/clean-unclean framework; introduces only non-doctrinal ritual objects (cedar, scarlet yarn, hyssop).
15	No new theological vocabulary; extends ch. 10–12’s טָמֵא/טָהוֹר (tamei/tahor) and טֻמְאָה (tumah) framework to a further category of bodily discharge.

All other chapters (1–13, 16–27) introduce at least one new load-bearing term as documented above.