respectful form of "do" (nasaru)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way to do this is through the usage of lexical honorific forms, i.e., completely different words, as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. In these verses, nasaru (なさる), the respectful form of suru (する) or “do,” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Honorary "are" construct denoting God (“lead out”)

Click or tap here to see the rest of this insight.

Like a number of other East Asian languages, Japanese uses a complex system of honorifics, i.e. a system where a number of different levels of politeness are expressed in language via words, word forms or grammatical constructs. These can range from addressing someone or referring to someone with contempt (very informal) to expressing the highest level of reference (as used in addressing or referring to God) or any number of levels in-between.

One way Japanese shows different degree of politeness is through the usage of an honorific construction where the morpheme are (され) is affixed on the verb as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. This is particularly done with verbs that have God as the agent to show a deep sense of reverence. Here, michibikidas-are-ru (導き出される) or “lead out” is used.

(Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )

Translation commentary on Exod 18:1

Jethro, first mentioned in 3.1, is the same man as Reuel, mentioned in 2.18. The priest of Midian identifies him as a religious leader of the Midianites. (See 2.16.) Moses’ father-in-law identifies him as the one whom Moses would have to respect through family ties. Father-in-law is a term related to the word for “circumcise,” as explained at 4.25. It is used eleven times in this chapter, which seems unnatural even in the Hebrew. We cannot be certain why it is used repeatedly, but it need not be repeated after this first instance in translation, if it seems unnatural to do so. (But see the comment at verse 12.)

Heard of all that God had done does not indicate just how Jethro learned of this. God is the word ʾelohim, which is used twelve times in this chapter. This term should be carefully distinguished from the name Yahweh (LORD), which is used here only six times. Had done is simply “did” in the Hebrew, meaning to make, produce, or perform. This refers to all the plagues as well as to the miraculous crossing at the Red Sea. For Moses and for Israel his people refers to the Israelites as Yahweh’s people, and translators should make this explicit.

How the LORD now switches from ʾelohim to Yahweh, but this should not suggest that Jethro is speaking of two different deities. Good News Translation omits LORD in favor of God in order to avoid such a misunderstanding. Contemporary English Version combines the two terms as follows: “And he heard what the LORD God had done for Moses and his people, after rescuing them from Egypt.” If translators choose to follow Contemporary English Version‘s model, “the LORD God” may also be rendered as “the LORD who is God,” or even “Yahweh who is God.” Had brought Israel out of Egypt is literally “that Yahweh [was] the one who caused to go out the Israelites from Egypt.”

Quoted with permission from Osborn, Noel D. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Exodus. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1999. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .