Jonah

Drawing by Ismar David from H. L. Ginsberg 1969. For other images of Ismar David drawings, see here.

Following is an image of the Jonah Sarcophagus or the 3rd quarter of the 3rd century, housed in the Museo Pio Cristiano (photographed by Richard Stracke , shared under Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license):

Peppard (2024, p. 119ff.) analyzes the sarcophagus (click or tap here to see the analysis):

The textual version of the short story begins with God calling Jonah as a prophet to go east and preach repentance to the Gentiles of the great city of Nineveh (ancient Assyria; modern Mosul, Iraq). On the left the men load a boat, which Jonah has disobediently boarded to sail westward, away from Israel and away from God’s prophetic commandment (Jonah 1). Moving to the right, the men throw Jonah into the sea, in an attempt to quell the raging storm, which they (rightly) interpret has been caused by Jonah’s disobedience to his god. In this artistic version, he dives straight into the mouth of the great fish—portrayed here, as elsewhere, like a sea monster—and prays to God for salvation over three days and three nights (Jonah 2). He is then spit out onto shore and commanded again by God to preach repentance to Nineveh (Jonah 3). He does so but then becomes disgruntled when the Ninevites do repent and God does not enact his planned punishment. Despite having been saved himself, Jonah doesn’t think these others are deserving of God’s mercy. So God teaches him a final lesson (Jonah 4). While Jonah pouts alone outside of the city, God provides a large new plant to grow over Jonah, to protect him from the desert sun. This scene dominates the upper-right register, with Jonah reclining nude under bountiful shade, as if in a blessed afterlife. But as quickly as the plant grew, God sends a worm to destroy it, so that Jonah is again near death—first from a tempest-tossed ocean, and now from a sun-scorched desert. The story concludes with God delivering a prophetic sermon to his reluctant prophet: if Jonah is concerned over the life and death of just one plant that emerged and vanished so quickly, how much more should God be concerned with the fate of the thousands of lives in Nineveh, at that time the largest city in the known world?

The textual version of the story ends, like many prophetic oracles of the Old Testament, with a question. The question hangs in the air for ancient listeners and modern readers, opening up to reflection and discussion about the tension between justice and mercy, about God’s commitment to a chosen people while offering salvation to others, and about the persistent self-centered ways of even God’s chosen messengers. The earliest Christian textual interpreters seized on two aspects of the story. First, as represented by the Gospel of Luke, Jesus interprets “the sign of Jonah” for his generation to be a call toward repentance (Luke 11:29-32). Just as he began his ministry with, “Repent, for the Kingdom of God is at hand,” along with John’s baptismal ritual to enact such repentance, so, too, does he connect his preaching to the universalism of Jonah’s mission. Luke thus emphasizes chapters 3 and 4 of Jonah, but Matthew’s version of Jesus’ teaching draws from the action of chapter 2. Just as Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days, “so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights” (Matt 12:40). Matthew includes the same teaching of repentance as Luke but also adds the unique interpretation of Jonah’s “death” and “resurrection” as a foreshadowing of Jesus’ own. This second idea comes to dominate the subsequent reception history. Then, when the apostle Paul describes immersion baptism as a ritualized participation in death and resurrection (Rom 6:3-4), the resources are all present to close the loop on the Jonah cycle. The story of Jonah therefore portrays (for Christians) the necessity of repentance, the salvific role of immersion in water as a death and resurrection, and the universal message of the God of Israel for all people, whether Jews or Gentiles. No matter how wayward a son of Israel has been, no matter how wicked a king of the Gentiles has been, God’s mercy is available and boundless.

The artist of the sarcophagus surrounds the Jonah cycle with other stories to reinforce these meanings for the viewer. Looking closely at the water, between the sea monster and the reclining Jonah, one can see an inset Noah. Depicted in the “Jack-in-the-box” style typical of this era, Noah emerges from the ark to find the dove messenger returning with an olive branch (Gen 8:11), signifying the end of the flood and the salvation of those in the ark.- Early Christian artists often juxtapose various stories of salvation near or through water. One might even read the fisherman on the lower right, whose line casts near to where Jonah comes on shore, as a symbol of Jesus’ first metaphor for preaching and discipleship: “Come, follow me,” Jesus said to Simon Peter and Andrew while they were fishing, “and I will make you fishers of men” (Matt 5:19).

The upper left features Jesus’ raising of Lazarus, a “sign” performed in the Gospel of John that bears obvious connection to the “sign of Jonah” in the Gospel of Matthew. The center of the upper register shows two scenes that are open to multiple interpretations. One possibility is from the Old Testament: here depicts Moses drawing “water from the rock” to satisfy the thirst of the Israelites wandering the wilderness during the exodus (Exod 17 / Num 20); to its right might then be the rebellion of Israelites against Moses (perhaps Num 16).

Another possibility involves a different “water from the rock” miracle, that of Peter summoning a spring of water with which to baptize his repentant jailers. This is a non-canonical story about Peter’s life, but one apparently in very wide circulation, as there are at least 225 examples of it preserved from early Christian art. The scene to its right would thus be the arrest of Peter, another non-canonical but widely depicted story. Either option signifies God’s miraculous provision for salvation through water, whether through thirst-quenching or a new covenant with God. The upper right shows a shepherd guiding sheep out of a mausoleum-like structure, and this calls to mind various biblical images of a shepherd and flock as salvation from death: the “Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23), the parables of the lost sheep (Luke 15 / Matt 18), and the “good shepherd” and “gate” for the sheep (John 10), among others. Whoever “enters the gate” of death through Jesus will be saved, say the Gospel of John and the Jonah sarcophagus in unison. Both Jews and Gentiles will be “one flock” with “one shepherd” (John 10:16).

With these details in mind, we can zoom back out to see the big picture one final time. If you allow your eyes to be guided by the overall flow of the shapes and lines, you will see a curved arc of descent and ascent. Begin above the sail of the boat, where there stands in the sky what looks like a person peering through a circular portal in the heavens. In fact, this is the Roman sky god Caelus, who is often pictured this way during the Roman imperial era, with a billowing garment over his head. This personification of the sky or heaven (hence the word “celestial”) was adopted frequently in early Christian art as a way to communicate heavenly realms to the viewer (see also Figure 5.6 below). Some Roman writers even identified the God of Israel (as a sky god) with the Roman god Caelus, so we might imagine him here as a symbol of divine command over the drama below U His gaze looks down along the line of the sail and follows the halyard directly into the snout of the beast. The arc flattens at the center of the sarcophagus and then bends upward through the right-facing snout, upward along the reclining Jonah’s left arm, then his right arm, and above to the plant of his blessed afterlife. From its tiny details to its overall form, this artistic masterwork conjures a treasury of biblical stories and frames the hoped-for arc of salvation from death.

Following is a contemporary Coptic Orthodox icon of Jonah.

 

Orthodox Icons are not drawings or creations of imagination. They are in fact writings of things not of this world. Icons can represent our Lord Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, and the Saints. They can also represent the Holy Trinity, Angels, the Heavenly hosts, and even events. Orthodox icons, unlike Western pictures, change the perspective and form of the image so that it is not naturalistic. This is done so that we can look beyond appearances of the world, and instead look to the spiritual truth of the holy person or event. (Source )

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with a sign that depicts “swallow (by a large fish).” (Source: Steve Parkhurst)


“Jonah” in Spanish Sign Language, source: Sociedad Bíblica de España

In Swiss-German Sign Language it is translated with the sign for “stubbornness.”


“Jonah” in Swiss-German Sign Language, source: DSGS-Lexikon biblischer Begriffe , © CGG Schweiz

For more information on translations of proper names with sign language see Sign Language Bible Translations Have Something to Say to Hearing Christians .

son of

The Greek and Hebrew that is translated as “son of” in English is translated in all Icelandic Bible versions of the Icelandic Bible Society (latest edition 2007) in parallel with the Icelandic naming system . This means that for instance in Matthew 16:17 the name that is transliterated and translated in English as “Simon son of Jonah” becomes “Simon Jónasson” or in Isaiah 8:2 “Zechariah son of Jeberechiah” becomes “Sakaría Jeberekíason” where in both cases the “-son” means “son of.”

In cases where “son of” does not refer to a literal father or perhaps stepfather but to lineage, however, this system is not used. So in Matthew 1:1 “Jesus the Messiah, the son of David, the son of Abraham” is translated as “Jesú Krists, sonar Davíðs, sonar Abrahams.”

The referenced verses all have at least one instance where the Icelandic patronymic or matronymic naming system is used. (Source: Halldór Elías Guðmundsson)

See also daughter of.

servant / slave

While the Greek term doulos in the New Testament and ‘ebed in the Old Testament refer to slightly different concepts (unlike in New Testament Judea in Old Testament Israel and Judah, Hebrew servants/slaves were required to be released after six years of labor and, regardless of when they started their servitude, all Hebrew servants were to be automatically freed during the year of Jubilee), translation issues are somewhat similar.

Joel Baden (2025, p. 65ff.) says this about the Hebrew term used in the Old Testament / Hebrew Bible:

“The English words ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ have decidedly different connotations. ‘Servant’ has the sense of ‘employee.’ ‘Slave,’ by contrast, carries with it the ideas of an owned and controlled body, of violence and dishonor. The connotation of ‘servant’ can verge on the positive; ‘slave’ is predominantly negative. How a reader of the Bible understands the identity of a character or the relationship between one character and another or the world of ancient Israel depends significantly on whether the word ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ is used. In Hebrew, however, there is but one word underlying every occurrence of ‘servant’ and ‘slave’ in our modern translations. The distinction between the two exists only on the level of interpretation.

“It is not a matter of mere nomenclature. Take the story of Genesis 24, in which Abraham sends his servant off to find a wife for Isaac. The servant — though the main character of the passage — has no name and is identified only by his title, which he even uses to introduce himself: ‘I am Abraham’s servant,’ he says (Genesis 24:34, Jewish Publication Society). This is often read as a warm story about a devoted servant — usually imagined to be relatively old — who carries out the elderly patriarch’s final wishes. How does it change, how do we reimagine it, when we read all thirteen mentions of Abraham’s servant as, in fact, Abraham’s slave? We know Abraham has slaves: His ‘servant’ even says so in this very chapter in the very next verse: ‘The Lord has greatly blessed my master, and he has become rich: he has given him sheep and cattle, silver and gold, male and female slaves, camels and asses’ (24:35, JPS). Yet generations of translators, interpreters, and readers have failed to connect the slaves (the property with which God has blessed Abraham) and the servant — the slave who is the protagonist of this same story.

“When slaves are turned into servants, the Bible itself is changed. Our revulsion at the institution of slavery is kept at a distance from the biblical text that stands as our religious heritage. The Bible is protected, albeit from itself. Slavery is minimized, or worse: The King James Version, notably, does not translate ‘ebed as ‘slave’ a single time. The result? Some KJV readers have denied that there is any slavery in the Bible whatsoever. Yet the word ‘ebed appears around 800 times in the Bible. That’s 800 moments when a slave, and the existence of slavery in ancient Israel and the biblical text, has been erased.

“The social role that we associate with the term ‘servant’ didn’t exist in ancient Israel. Slaves, however, did. Israel knew what it was to be a slave, and Israel knew, too, what it was to own a slave. And thus Israel uses the language and metaphor of slavery again and again to express the basic notions of obedience, of power disparity, of bodily control and the absence of agency. Samuel says to Yahweh upon being called, ‘Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening’ (1 Samuel 3:9, JPS). ‘Let my lord go ahead of his servant,’ Jacob says to Esau in Genesis 33:14 (JPS). Rendered as ‘servant’ in every translation, this is a sort of formally obsequious, self-abnegating speech. While literal slavery is not at stake in these sorts of expressions, the metaphorical reference to the relative status of slave and master is lost when it is translated as ‘servant.’

“So, too, when those figures who are the ‘ebed to a king are referred to as ‘courtiers,’ ‘officials,’ ‘attendants,’ ‘soldiers,’ ‘subjects,’ ‘envoys,’ ‘ministers,’ or even sometimes simply ‘men,’ of the king. These are all translations of the same word, and the instinct to specify their distinctive roles in the royal court is understandable. Yet in doing so, translations obscure the actual language with the connotations that it presents: subordination, threat of violence to one’s person, absolute control over will and agency. And so, too, when it is not a human king but God to whom one is said to be ‘ebed. In the book of Joshua, God states, ‘My servant Moses is dead’ (1:2, JPS) — we are relatively comfortable with the idea of serving God but perhaps less so with the idea of being God’s slave. Yet the qualities of obedience, subservience, and loyalty — and the implicit threat of punishment for the lack thereof — are part of this picture as well. One might point to the way this language is picked up in the New Testament in the phrase ‘slave of Christ’ in 1 Corinthians 7:22.

“If ‘servants’ and ‘slaves’ are not understood to be equivalent — and in modern English it is safe to say that they are not — then every time that the word ‘ebed appears, a choice has to be made by the translator. The diminishment of the very word ‘slave’ in English translations of the Hebrew Bible results in the diminishment of the idea and reality of slavery in the Bible and in the world that produced it. Though there is no debate to be had about whether there was slavery in the Bible and in ancient Israel, a lay reader of the text in translation might well wonder.

“Our ears, and eyes, have become accustomed to seeing the word ‘servant’ in the Bible. ‘Slave’ often sounds wrong, inapt, almost harsh. Yet it is just this discomfort that signals how important the change is. Whenever we encounter the word ‘servant’ in our English translations, we should be obliged to ask why it says ‘servant’ and not ‘slave’ — and what difference it would make to our reading of the text as an individual, as a community, and as a culture if we were instead to read ‘slave.’”

Ruden (2021, p. lviii) says this about the Greek term in the New Testament:

“In Judea, servitude was sui generis and could be complicated, and accordingly the Greek vocabulary in scripture is varied. But there appears to be no basis for sugarcoating the word meaning a chattel slave in nearly all Greek literature, doulos. It is unlikely that the internationally oriented authors of the Gospels didn’t mean what their peers meant by the word — ‘slave.’ Also, the English word ‘servant’ is too vague for the array of servitors (including trusted house slaves and personal attendants), military and administrative subordinates, and ritual helpers the Greek of the Gospels distinguishes.”

Some English New Testament translations (Ruden 2021, Hart 2017, The Orthodox New Testament 2004) have consistently used slave for the Greek doulos but no Old Testament translation consistently translates ‘ebed with only one term.

In a number of leading German translations, including the Catholic Einheitsübersetzung (1980 / 2016) and the Protestant Elberfelder Bibel (1871 / 2006), BasisBibel (2021), as well as the translation by Luther (all editions) use the term Knecht throughout. Knecht is an old-fashioned term for a low-class, often agricultural servant with little or no social mobility, a position that is somewhat located between Diener (“servant”) and Sklave (“slave”). The only times these versions specifically don’t use Knecht is where slavery is specifically in the focus (such as Leviticus 25:44 or Philemon 1:16).

sea / lake

The various Greek, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Latin and Hebrew terms that are translated as “sea,” “ocean,” or “lake” in English are all translated in Chichewa with one term: nyanja. Malawi, where Chichewa is spoken, has a lot of lakes but does not share a border with the ocean (source: Mawu a Mulungu mu Chichewa Chalero Back Translation). Likewise, in Toposa all the different bodies of water are all called by one term as well: nya-name̥ (source: Schröder 2026, p. 101).

In Malagasy culture, the sea is perceived as sacred because it was a path taken by the ancestors. That is why the Malagasy word for the “sea” is ranomasina, which literally means “the sacred water.” The word masina actually has two different meanings: “salted” and “sacred/holy.” Salt is used for the conservation of some foods, such as meat or fish, that are to be set aside for later use. In this sense, the Malagasy phrase for “Holy Spirit” has the literal meaning of “Salted Spirit.” (Source: Brigitte Rabarijaona in The Bible Translator 2022, p. 103ff.)

“Sea” (or: “ocean”) is translated in Tepeuxila Cuicatec as “water land” and in Xicotepec De Juárez Totonac as “very big lake.” (Source: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)

complete verse (2 Kings 14:25)

Following are a number of back-translations as well as a sample translation for translators of 2 Kings 14:25:

  • Kupsabiny: “The king returned/restored the border of Israel which was from Lebo-hamath to the Salt Lake. That fulfilled the words which God spoke through the prophet Jonah son of Amittai who was from Gath-hepher.” (Source: Kupsabiny Back Translation)
  • Newari: “In accordance with the word the LORD God of Israel spoken by Jonah, son of Amittai, the prophet from Gath-Hepher, he restored the boundaries of Israel from Lebo-hamath to the Dead Sea.” (Source: Newari Back Translation)
  • Hiligaynon: “He was- the-one -who-restored the places that belong to Israel before, from Lebo Hamat going-to the Dead Sea. This is what the LORD, the God of Israel had-promised, through his servant prophet Jonas, the child/(son) of Amitai who comes-from-Gat Hefer.” (Source: Hiligaynon Back Translation)
  • English: “His soldiers conquered again some of the territory that had previously belonged to Israel, from Hamath city in the north to the Dead Sea in the south. That is what Yahweh, the God whom the Israelis worshiped, promised the prophet Jonah, the son of Amittai, from Gath-Hepher town, would happen.” (Source: Translation for Translators)

prophet

Click here to view graphically

Eugene Nida wrote the following about the translation of the Hebrew, Aramaic, Ge’ez, and Greek terms that are typically translated with “prophet” in English:

“The tendency in many translations is to use ‘to foretell the future’ for ‘prophesy,’ and ‘one who foretells the future’ for ‘prophet.’ This is not always a recommended usage, particularly if such expressions denote certain special native practices of spirit contact and control. It is true, of course, that prophets of the Bible did foretell the future, but this was not always their principal function. One essential significance of the Greek word prophētēs is ‘one who speaks forth,’ principally, of course, as a forth-teller of the Divine will. A translation such as ‘spokesman for God’ may often be employed profitably.” (1947, p. 234f.)

Following is a list of (back-) translations from other languages (click or tap for details):

  • San Blas Kuna: “one who speaks the voice of God”
  • Central Pame and Vai: “interpreter for God”
  • Kaqchikel, Navajo (Dinė), Yaka: “one who speaks for God”
  • Northern Grebo: “God’s town crier” (see more about this below)
  • Sapo: “God’s sent-word person”
  • Shipibo-Conibo, Ngäbere: “one who speaks God’s word”
  • Copainalá Zoque: “one who speaks-opens” (a compound meaning “one who discloses or reveals”)
  • Sierra Totonac: “one who causes them to know” (in the sense of “revealer”)
  • Batak Toba: “foreteller” (this and all the above acc. to Nida 1961, p. 7)
  • Western Bukidnon Manobo: “one who is inspired of God” (Source: Western Bukidnon Manobo Back Translation)
  • Alekano: “the true man who descended from heaven” (source: Ellis Deibler in Notes on Translation June 1986, p. 36ff.)
  • Aguaruna: “teller of God’s word” (source: M. Larson / B. Moore in Notes on Translation February 1970, p. 1-125)
  • Ekari: “person who speaks under divine impulse”
  • Mandarin Chinese: 先知 xiānzhī — “one who foreknows” (or the 1946/1970 translation by Lü Zhenzhong: 神言人 shényánrén — “divine-word-man”)
  • Uab Meto: “holy spokesman” (source for this and two above: Reiling / Swellengrebel)
  • Kouya: Lagɔɔ gbʋgbanyɔ — “the one who seeks God’s affairs” (source: Saunders, p. 269)
  • Kafa: “decide for God only” (source: Loren Bliese)
  • Martu Wangka: “sit true to God’s talk” (source: Carl Gross)
  • Eastern Highland Otomi: “word passer” (source: John Beekman in Notes on Translation November 1964, p. 1-22)
  • Obolo: ebi nriran: “one with power of divine revelation” (source: Enene Enene)
  • Mairasi: nonondoai nyan: “message proclaimer” (source: Enggavoter 2004)
  • Highland Totonac: “speaker on God’s behalf”
  • Central Tarahumara: “God’s preacher” (source for this and above: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff.)
  • Coatlán Mixe: “God’s word-thrower”
  • Ayutla Mixtec: “one who talks as God’s representative”
  • Isthmus Mixe: “speaker for God” (source for this and two above: Viola Waterhouse in Notes on Translation August 1966, p. 86ff.)
  • Mezquital Otomi / Paasaal: “God’s messenger” (source: Waterhouse / Parrott in Notes on Translation October 1967, p. 1ff. and Fabian N. Dapila in The Bible Translator 2024, p. 415ff.)
  • Noongar: Warda Marridjiny or “News Traveling” (source: Warda-Kwabba Luke-Ang)
  • Kutu: mtula ndagu or “one who gives the prediction of the past and the future” (Source: Pioneer Bible Translators, project-specific translation notes in Paratext)
  • Ebira: ọnịsẹ, a neologism that combines the prefix ọn for “a person” with ịsẹ for “prediction” (source: Scholz /Scholz 2015, p. 49)
  • French 1985 translation by Chouraqui: inspiré or “inspired one” (“someone in whom God has breathed [Latin: in + spiro]) (source: Watson 2023, p. 45)
  • Cherokee: adolehosgi (ᎠᏙᎴᎰᏍᎩ) or “discoverer of things,” a “term that was was traditionally applied to Cherokee medicine men or women who used divining.” (Source: Bender / Belt 2025, p. 49)

In Ixcatlán Mazatec a term is used that specifically includes women. (Source: Robert Bascom)

About the translation into Northern Grebo:

“In some instances these spiritual terms result from adaptations reflecting the native life and culture. Among the Northern Grebo people of Liberia, a missionary wanted some adequate term for ‘prophet,’ and she was fully aware that the native word for ‘soothsayer’ or ‘diviner’ was no equivalent for the Biblical prophet who spoke forth for God. Of course, much of what the prophets said referred to the future, and though this was an essential part of much of their ministry, it was by no means all. The right word for the Gbeapo people would have to include something which would not only mean the foretelling of important events but the proclamation of truth as God’s representative among the people. At last the right word came; it was ‘God’s town-crier.’ Every morning and evening the official representative of the chief goes through the village crying out the news, delivering the orders of the chief, and announcing important coming events. ‘God’s town-crier’ would be the official representative of God, announcing to the people God’s doings, His commands, and His pronouncements for their salvation and well-being. For the Northern Grebo people the prophet is no weird person from forgotten times; he is as real as the human, moving message of the plowman Amos, who became God’s town-crier to a calloused people.” (source: Nida 1952, p. 20)

In American Sign Language it is a person who sees into the future:


“Prophet” in American Sign Language (source )

In British Sign Language it is is translated with a sign that depicts a message coming from God to a person (the upright finger) and then being passed on to others. (Source: Anna Smith)


“Prophet” in British Sign Language (source: Christian BSL, used with permission)

See also prophesy and prophesy / prophetic frenzy.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: How to Recognize a Biblical Prophet .

See also seer.

Honorary "rare" construct denoting God ("speak")

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 rare (られ) 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, kata-rare-ru (語られる) or “speak” is used.

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

pronoun for "God"

God transcends gender, but most languages are limited to grammatical gender expressed in pronouns. In the case of English, this is traditionally confined to “he” (or in the forms “his,” “him,” and “himself”), “she” (and “her,” “hers,” and “herself”), and “it” (and “its” and “itself”).

Modern Mandarin Chinese, however, offers another possibility. Here, the third-person singular pronoun is always pronounced the same (tā), but it is written differently according to its gender (他 is “he,” 她 is “she,” and 它/牠 is “it” and their respective derivative forms). In each of these characters, the first (or upper) part defines the gender (man, woman, or thing/animal), while the second element gives the clue to its pronunciation.

In 1930, after a full century with dozens of Chinese translations, Bible translator Wang Yuande (王元德) coined a new “godly” pronoun: 祂. Chinese readers immediately knew how to pronounce it: tā. But they also recognized that the first part of that character, signifying something spiritual, clarified that each person of the Trinity has no gender aside from being God.

While the most important Protestant and Catholic Chinese versions respectively have opted not to use 祂, some Bible translations do and it is widely used in hymnals and other Christian materials. Among the translations that use 祂 to refer to “God” were early versions of Lü Zhenzhong’s (呂振中) version (New Testament: 1946, complete Bible: 1970). R.P. Kramers (in The Bible Translator 1956, p. 152ff. ) explains why later versions of Lü’s translation did not continue with this practice: “This new way of writing ‘He,’ however, has created a minor problem of its own: must this polite form be used whenever Jesus is referred to? Lü follows the rule that, wherever Jesus is referred to as a human being, the normal tā (他) is written; where he is referred to as divine, especially after the ascension, the reverential tā (祂) is used.”

In Kouya, Godié, Northern Grebo, Eastern Krahn, Western Krahn, and Guiberoua Béte, all languages of the Kru family in Western Africa, a different kind of system of pronouns is used (click or tap here to read more):

In that system, one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and others for natural elements, non-liquid masses, and some spiritual entities (one other is used for large animals and another one for miscellaneous items). While in these languages the pronoun for spiritual entities used to be employed when referring to God, this has changed into the use of the human pronoun.

Lynell Zogbo (in The Bible Translator 1989, p. 401ff. ) explains: “From informal discussions with young Christians especially, it would appear that, at least for some people, the experience and/or concepts of Christianity are affecting the choice of pronoun for God. Some people explain that God is no longer ‘far away,’ but is somehow tangible and personal. For these speakers God has shifted over into the human category.”

In Kouya, God (the Father) and Jesus are referred to with the human pronoun ɔ, whereas the Holy Spirit is referred to with a non-human pronoun. (Northern Grebo and Western Krahn make a similar distinction.)

Eddie Arthur, a former Kouya Bible translation consultant, says the following: “We tried to insist that this shouldn’t happen, but the Kouya team members were insistent that the human pronoun for the Spirit would not work.”

In Burmese, the pronoun ko taw (ကိုယ်တော်) is used either as 2nd person (you) or 3rd person (he, him, his) reference. “This term clearly has its root in the religious language in Burmese. No ordinary persons are addressed or known by this pronoun because it is reserved for Buddhist monks, famous religious teachers, and in the case of Christianity, the Trinity.” (Source: Gam Seng Shae in The Bible Translator 2002, p. 202ff. )

In Thai, the pronoun phra`ong (พระองค์) is used, a gender-neutral pronoun which must refer to a previously introduced royal or divine being. Similarly, in Northern Khmer, which is spoken in Thailand, “an honorific divine pronoun” is used for the pronoun referring to the persons of the Trinity (source: David Thomas in The Bible Translator 1993, p. 445 ). In Urak Lawoi’, another language spoken in Thailand, the translation often uses tuhat (ตูฮัด) — “God” — ”as a divine pronoun where Thai has phra’ong even though it’s actually a noun.” (Source for Thai and Urak Lawoi’: Stephen Pattemore)

The English “Contemporary Torah” addresses the question of God and gendered pronouns by mostly avoiding pronouns in the first five books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament (unless God is referred to as “lord,” “father,” “king,” or “warrior”). It does that by either using passive constructs (“He gave us” vs. “we were given”), by using the adjective “divine” or by using “God” rather than a pronoun.

Some Protestant and Orthodox English Bibles use a referential capitalized spelling when referring to the persons of the Trinity with “He,” “His,” “Him,” or “Himself.” This includes for instance the New American Standard Bible or The Orthodox New Testament, but most translations do not. Other languages where this is also done (in most Bible translations) are Twents as well as Indonesian and Malay. In the latter two languages this follows the language usage according to the Qur’an, which in turn predicts that usage (see Soesilo in The Bible Translator 1991, p. 442ff. and The Bible Translator 1997, p. 433ff. ).

See also first person pronoun referring to God.

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: Gender of God .

Translation: Chinese

在现代汉语中，第三人称单数代词的读音都是一样的（tā），但是写法并不一样，取决于性别以及是否有生命，即男性为“他”，女性为“她”，动物、植物和无生命事物为“它”（在香港和台湾的汉语使用，动物则为“牠”）。这些字的部首偏旁表明了性别（男人、女人、动物、无生命事物），而另一偏旁通常旁提示发音。

到1930年为止，基督教新教《圣经》经过整整一百年的翻译已经拥有了十几个译本，当时的一位圣经翻译者王元德新造了一个“神圣的”代词“祂”，偏旁“礻”表示神明。一般汉语读者会立即知道这字的发音是tā，而这个偏旁表示属灵的事物，因此他们明白这个字指出，三位一体的所有位格都没有性别之分，而单单是上帝。

然而，最重要的新教圣经译本（1919年的《和合本》）和天主教圣经译本（1968年的《思高圣经》）都没有采用“祂”；虽然如此，许多其他的圣经译本采用了这个字，另外还广泛出现在赞美诗和其他基督信仰的书刊中。（资料来源：Zetzsche）

《吕振中译本》的几个早期版本也使用“祂”来指称“上帝”；这个译本的《新约》于1946年译成，整部《圣经》于1970年完成。克拉默斯（Kramers）指出：“‘他’的这种新写法（即‘祂’）产生了一个小问题，就是在指称耶稣的时候，是否一律使用这个敬语代词？《吕振中译本》遵循的原则是，在称呼耶稣这个人的时候，用一般的‘他’，而在称呼耶稣神性的时候，特别是升天之后的耶稣，则用尊称‘祂’。”

Translator: Simon Wong