addressing God

Translators of different languages have found different ways with what kind of formality God is addressed.

Like many languages (but unlike Greek or Hebrew or modern English), Tuvan uses a formal vs. informal 2nd person pronoun (a familiar vs. a respectful “you”). Unlike other languages that have this feature, however, the translators of the Tuvan Bible have attempted to be very consistent in using the different forms of address in every case a 2nd person pronoun has to be used in the translation of the biblical text.

As Voinov shows in Pronominal Theology in Translating the Gospels (in: The Bible Translator 2002, p. 210ff. ), the choice to use either of the pronouns many times involved theological judgment. While the formal pronoun can signal personal distance or a social/power distance between the speaker and addressee, the informal pronoun can indicate familiarity or social/power equality between speaker and addressee.

In these verses, in which humans address God, the informal, familiar pronoun is used that communicates closeness.

Voinov notes that “in the Tuvan Bible, God is only addressed with the informal pronoun. No exceptions. An interesting thing about this is that I’ve heard new Tuvan believers praying with the formal form to God until they are corrected by other Christians who tell them that God is close to us so we should address him with the informal pronoun. As a result, the informal pronoun is the only one that is used in praying to God among the Tuvan church.”

In Gbaya, “a superior, whether father, uncle, or older brother, mother, aunt, or older sister, president, governor, or chief, is never addressed in the singular unless the speaker intends a deliberate insult. When addressing the superior face to face, the second person plural pronoun ɛ́nɛ́ or ‘you (pl.)’ is used, similar to the French usage of vous.

Accordingly, the translators of the current version of the Gbaya Bible chose to use the plural ɛ́nɛ́ to address God. There are a few exceptions. In Psalms 86:8, 97:9, and 138:1, God is addressed alongside other “gods,” and here the third person pronoun o is used to avoid confusion about who is being addressed. In several New Testament passages (Matthew 21:23, 26:68, 27:40, Mark 11:28, Luke 20:2, 23:37, as well as in Jesus’ interaction with Pilate and Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman at the well) the less courteous form for Jesus is used to indicate ignorance of his position or mocking.” (Source Philip Noss)

In the most recent Manchu translation of 1835 (a revision of an earlier edition from 1822), God is never addressed with a pronoun but with “father” (ama /ᠠᠮᠠ) instead. Chengcheng Liu (in this post on the Cambridge Centre for Chinese Theology blog ) explains: “In Manchu tradition, as in Chinese etiquette, second-person pronouns could be considered disrespectful when speaking to superiors or spiritual beings. Manchu Shamanist prayers avoided si [‘you’] and sini [‘your’] for this very reason. To use them for God would be, in Lipovzoff’s [one of the two translators] words, ‘the most uncouth and indecent way to speak to the Almighty — as if He were a servant or slave.’ There was also a grammatical problem. In Manchu, si and sini could refer to both singular and plural subjects. For a faith that insisted on the singularity of God, this was potentially confusing. By contrast, repeating ama removed any ambiguity.”

In Dutch, Afrikaans, Gronings, and Western Frisian translations, God is always addressed with the formal pronoun.

See also formal pronoun: disciples addressing Jesus, female second person singular pronoun in Psalms.

Translation commentary on 1 Esdras 8:71

As soon as I heard these things: Ezra’s response to the accusation is introduced by a temporal clause in Greek, as translated in both Revised Standard Version and Good News Bible. This new event must be introduced by an appropriate discourse marker to signal the change in actor and action.

I rent my garments and my holy mantle: Ezra responded to the information that he received with three personal actions of ritual mourning. First, he tore his clothes. Tearing clothes was a sign of grief or despair (compare Josh 7.6; Jdg 11.35; Isa 37.1; 1 Macc 2.14). My garments probably refers to his inner clothes, and my holy mantle was the outer robe he wore as a priest. This clause may be rendered “I tore my priestly robe and other garments in despair” or “I was so upset [or, depressed] that I tore my garments, even my priestly robe.”

And pulled out hair from my head and beard was another sign of extreme grief or despair. Ezra did not pull out all his hair, only a few hairs as a symbolic gesture. In our opinion it is more likely that he simply grabbed a fistful of hair and pulled on it.

And sat down in anxiety and grief: Ezra also sat down directly on the ground to show his grief. Anxiety and grief may be translated “overwhelmed by grief and worry.”

Here are possible models for this verse:

• “As soon as I heard this, I tore my garments in despair, and even my priestly robe. I sat down on the ground, pulling at my hair and beard, overwhelmed by grief and worry.

• “As soon as I heard this, I was so upset that I tore my garments, even my priestly robe. Then I sat down on the ground, pulling out some of the hair on my head and beard. I was full of grief and worry.

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on 1-2 Esdras. (UBS Helps for Translators). Miami: UBS, 2019. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.