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 (or a lack) of an honorific prefix as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
The Hebrew that is translated as “honor” or “host” or similar in English is translated in the Shinkaiyaku Bible as o-motenashi (おもてなし), combining “welcome/accommodate” (motenashi) with the respectful prefix o-. (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
In Malay, the pronoun beta for the royal “I” (or “my” or “me”) that is used by royals when speaking to people of lower rank, subordinates or commoners to refer to themselves in these verses. This reflects the “language of the court because the monarchy and sultanate in Malaysia are still alive and well. All oral and printed literature (including newspapers and magazines) preserve and glorify the language of the court. Considering that the language of the court is part of the Malaysian language, court language is used sparingly where appropriate, specifically with texts relating to palace life.” (Source: Daud Soesilo in The Bible Translator 2025, p. 263ff.)
Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of Numbers 22:37:
Kupsabiny: “Balak said to (him), ‘Why did you not come the first day that I called you? Maybe you thought that I was unable to pay you enough?’” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
Newari: “Balak said to Balaam, "I sent men to call you, but why did you not come to me quickly? Can you not trust me that I will honor you?"” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
Hiligaynon: “Balak said to Balaam, ‘(Is it) not so that I urgently summon for you (sing.)? Why you (sing.) did- not -come right-away? Do- you (sing.) -think that I will- not -give- you (sing.) -a-wage?’” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
English: “When he arrived where Balaam was, he said to him, ‘I sent you a message saying that you should come immediately ! Why did you not come immediately? Did you think that I was not able to pay you a lot of money for coming?’” (Source: Translation for Translators)
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 choice of a benefactive construction as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017.
Here, kite (来て) or “come” is used in combination with kudasaru (くださる), a respectful form of the benefactive kureru (くれる). A benefactive reflects the good will of the giver or the gratitude of a recipient of the favor. To convey this connotation, English translation needs to employ a phrase such as “for me (my sake)” or “for you (your sake).” (Source: S. E. Doi, see also S. E. Doi in Journal of Translation, 18/2022, p. 37ff. )
And Balak said to Balaam: The generic verb said may be rendered “asked” (Contemporary English Version, New Living Translation), since Balak asks Balaam three questions. Only the second one needs an answer from Balaam; Balak’s other questions are rhetorical. (There are no polite formalities of greeting here; Balak gets right to the point!) Balaam’s answer in the next verse actually includes a rhetorical question as well. Translators must distinguish the real question from the rhetorical ones. Also they must use the correct honorific forms if their language uses them. Here both Balak and Balaam would probably use such terms of respect when addressing each other (for example, plural pronouns).
Did I not send to you to call you?: The Hebrew verb for send is repeated here for emphasis, first as an infinitive absolute and then as a finite verb. Models that express the emphasis here are “Had I not sent for you urgently?” (Bijbel: Vertaling in opdracht van het Nederlandsch Bijbelgenootschap, De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling), “Didn’t I send you an urgent invitation?” (New Living Translation), “Did I not send you an urgent summons?” (New International Version), “Did I not send time and again to summon you?” (Revised English Bible), and “Did I not send for you several times?” As NET Bible comments in a footnote, Balak is showing frustration with Balaam for refusing to come. In some languages it will be helpful to express this rhetorical question as a strong statement, for example, “I have sent for you so urgently” (Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch) or “I have repeatedly invited you!”
Why did you not come to me?: Luther expresses the exclamatory tone of this question better by saying “Why then did you not come to me?” This rendering makes the connection with the first question more explicit. Compare also De Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling with “Why did you not come before now?” The phrase to me may imply that Balaam had dishonored Balak by not responding quickly to the call of a king.
Good News Translation combines Balak’s first two questions by saying “Why didn’t you come when I sent for you the first time?” (similarly Contemporary English Version, Bible en français courant). Good News Translation changes the first question into a temporal clause (“when I sent for you the first time”), placing it at the end of the sentence. However, it is doubtful that this model adequately expresses Balak’s obvious frustration in his first question.
Am I not able to honor you? is literally “Am I really not able to honor you?” Revised Standard Version omits the Hebrew particle meaning “really” (ʾumnam). A better model for this emphatic rhetorical question is “Am I really not able to reward you?” (New International Version; similarly New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh). Good News Translation could be revised to express the emphasis as follows: “Did you really think I wasn’t able to reward you enough?” The king seems to think that Balaam is motivated by greed and does not sufficiently respect his capacity as king. For the sense of honor in this context, see the comments on verse 17.
Quoted with permission from de Regt, Lénart J. and Wendland, Ernst R. A Handbook on Numbers. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2016. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.