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. Two 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

Scriptures Plain & Simple (Mark 1:1-8)

Barclay Newman, a translator on the teams for both the Good News Bible and the Contemporary English Version, translated passages of the New Testament into English and published them in 2014, “in a publication brief enough to be non-threatening, yet long enough to be taken seriously, and interesting enough to appeal to believers and un-believers alike.” The following is the translation of Mark 1:1-8:

This is the Best News Ever,
       and it’s about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.

It began, just as God had announced
       in the book by the prophet Isaiah:

              I’m sending my messenger
                     to prepare the way for you.
              Listen to the voice shouting in the desert,
                     “Make a straight path for the Coming One’.”

So John Dipper showed up in the desert,
shouting for everyone to hear: “It’s turn around time!
       Do this and be baptized, if you hope to be forgiven!”

From Jerusalem and all over Judea,

       multitudes swarmed around John like flies —
they openly confessed their sins,
       and he baptized them in the River Jordan.

John Dipper wore garments of camel hair
with a leather strap around his waist —
       his food was locusts and honey from the fields.

His message: “Someone more powerful will come,
       and I’m not worthy to be his lowest slave.
My baptism is merely with water —
       his baptism is with the Holy Spirit!”

3rd person pronoun with high register (Japanese)

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 third person singular and plural pronoun (“he,” “she,” “it” and their various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. While it’s not uncommon to avoid pronouns altogether in Japanese, there are is a range of third person pronouns that can be used. In these verses a number of them are used that pay particularly much respect to the referred person (or, in fact, God, as in Exodus 15:2), including kono kata (この方), sono kata (その方), and ano kata (あの方), meaning “this person,” “that person,” and “that person over there.”

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

See also third person pronoun with exalted register.

Translation commentary on Mark 1:8

Text:

Before ‘water’ and ‘Holy Spirit’ Textus Receptus has en ‘in.’ Support for the second en is stronger than the first: Souter, Merk, Kilpatrick, and Soden include en in both places, while Tischendorf, Lagrange, and Vogels include it only before ‘Holy Spirit’; Nestle, Westcott and Hort, Taylor, and Turner reject en in both instances. (It is to be noticed that although in other passages in the N.T. en is sometimes used and sometimes not used before ‘water’ it is always used before ‘Holy Spirit’: Mt. 3.11; Lk. 3.16; Jn. 1.33; Acts 1.5; 11.16.)

Exegesis:

egō … autos ‘I … he’: the personal pronouns, not being essential in Greek, are emphatic: ‘I, on my part … he, on his part.’

ebaptisa ‘baptized’: the force of the aorist has been the subject of considerable comment. The majority of translations and commentators agree with Lagrange’s interpretation: the ministry of the Baptist ends when that of Jesus begins (cf. Howard II, 458f.: “the aorist of the thing just happened”). In English the perfect ‘have baptized’ (King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Knox, The Modern Speech New Testament, Moffatt, Manson, Translator’s New Testament; cf. Zürcher Bibel, Le Nouveau Testament. Version Synodale, O Novo Testamento de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo. Revisdo Autorizada) may convey the meaning ‘I have baptized and am baptizing no more.’ According to such a view the present baptizō ‘I baptize’ of the parallels Mt. 3.11, Lk. 3.16, represents a change of meaning.

There is, however, an alternative way of viewing the aorist tense: without any particular reference to past time it describes or conveys a general truth (called a “gnomic” aorist). When the full force of ekērussen legōn ‘he was preaching’ in the previous verse is noticed, John’s message is not represented as having been delivered once, but repeatedly, throughout his ministry. The aorist ebaptisa ‘I baptized’ does not mean, therefore, that the action is past and finished; it is rather the reference to an action in which time is not emphasized, best translated into English by the present, ‘I baptize.’

(en) ‘in’: whether or not the preposition is included before ‘water’ and/or ‘Holy Spirit,’ the sense adopted by the majority of translations and commentators is ‘with,’ that is, the instrumental.

pneuma hagion (3.29; 12.36; 13.11; cf. to pneuma ‘the Spirit’ 1.10, 12) ‘the Holy Spirit’ – and so throughout Mark (and the N.T.). The presence or absence of the definite article, in Greek, before ‘Holy Spirit’ does not establish a difference between the operation, power, or gifts of the Spirit, and the person of the Spirit. With or without the article pneuma hagion is always ‘the Holy Spirit.’ Whatever may have been the original significance of the phrase in the preaching of John the Baptist (see Taylor and reff.), especially with the addition of kai puri ‘and with fire’ in Matthew and Luke, the meaning intended by the author of the Gospel is fully Christian, i.e. the Holy Spirit of God.

Translation:

Undoubtedly no word has given quite so much trouble to the Bible translator as spirit, for (1) it includes such a wide range of meaning, from ‘evil spirit’ to ‘poor in spirit’ to ‘Holy Spirit’ and (2) it touches so vitally the crucial comparison and contrast between Christianity and so-called “animism.” We cannot go into a detailed examination of all the problems involving in either ‘spirit’ or ‘Holy Spirit.’ There are four principal dangers in the choice of a word for Holy Spirit: (1) the term may identify an essential malevolent spirit, and no mere addition of the word ‘holy’ or ‘good’ is likely to change the basic connotation of the word, (2) the word may mean primarily the spirit of a deceased person (hence God must have died – a not infrequent error in Bible translations), (3) the expression used to mean ‘spirit’ may denote only an impersonal life force, a sort of soul-stuff which may be conceived as indwelling all plant, animal, and human substances (therefore, to say that ‘God is spirit’ is to deny His essential personality), and (4) a borrowed term may signify next to nothing to the people, and can only be explained by another term or terms, which, if they are adequate to explain the borrowing, should have been used in the first place. It is true that in some instances a borrowed word has seemed to be the only alternative, but it should be chosen only as a last resort.

There is no easy formula to be employed in finding an adequate equivalent for Holy Spirit, for what seems to work quite well in one area may not serve in another. One thing, however, is certain: one should not select a term before making a comprehensive study of all kinds of words for spirits and for parts or aspects of personality and thus having as complete a view as possible of all indigenous beliefs about supernatural beings. (The use of the question outline suggested on pp. 212-13 of Bible Translating may prove to be very useful for such necessary investigations.)

An almost equally difficult element in the phrase Holy Spirit is the unit meaning ‘holy,’ which in the Biblical languages involves a concept of separation (i.e. unto God or for His service). In general, however, it is difficult to employ a term meaning primarily ‘separated,’ for this often leads to the idea of ‘cast out.’ One must make sure that the concept of ‘separated’ implies not merely ‘separated from’ (hence, often culturally ostracized), but ‘separated to’ (in the idea of consecrated, dedicated, or ‘taboo’ – in its proper technical sense). Perhaps the most naive mistakes in rendering Holy have been to assume that this word can be translated as ‘white’ or ‘clean,’ for we assume that “Cleanliness is next to godliness,” a belief which is quite foreign to most peoples in the world. Holy may, however, be rendered in some languages as ‘clear,’ ‘pure’ (in Toraja-Sa’dan, Pamona and Javanese ‘clean’ or ‘pure’), ‘shining,’ or ‘brilliant’ (with the connotation of awesomeness), concepts which are generally much more closely related to ‘holiness’ than is ‘whiteness’ or ‘cleanness.’

If one encounters any particular difficulties in finding an adequate expression for Holy Spirit, it is recommended that the translator get in touch with the Translations Department of the Bible Society for special help and guidance, since a proper solution to this problem is so basic to any and all communication of the Gospel message.

In so far as possible the phrases ‘baptize you with water’ and ‘baptize you with the Holy Spirit’ should be parallel. However, if the term for ‘baptism’ includes the term ‘water,’ then some adjustment must be made. One would not want to say, for example, in Tzeltal ‘you take water with the Holy Spirit’ in the second clause, even though a combined idiom ‘he gives and you take water’ describes the total process of baptism. The parallelism is attained, therefore, in Tzeltal by translating, ‘I have given you and you have taken water; but he will give and you will take the Holy Spirit.’

Quoted with permission from Bratcher, Robert G. and Nida, Eugene A. A Handbook on the Gospel of Mark. (UBS Handbook Series). New York: UBS, 1961. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .