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 the closely related Indonesian and Malay. In both 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

Translation commentary on Mark 3:22

Exegesis:

hoi apo Ierosolumōn katabantes ‘who came down from Jerusalem’: one went up to the capital (cf. 10.32) and came down from it (cf. similar usage with regard to London) (cf. Lk. 2.51, 10.30f., Acts 8.26).

For hoi grammateis ‘the scribes’ cf. 1.22.

elegon hoti … kai hoti ‘they were saying that … and that’: both times hoti is recitative, introducing direct speech. This being so, it would be more accurate to punctuate the translation in such a way as to indicate two direct statements: The scribes … were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “By the prince of demons he casts out demons.”

elegon ‘they were saying’: the statement was repeated.

Beelzeboul echei ‘he has Beelzebul,’ i.e. ‘he is possessed by Beelzebul.’ Commentators are divided over whether or not ‘Beelzebul’ and ‘the prince of the demons’ are the same one, or refer to two different evil spirits.

en tō archonti tōn daimoniōn ‘in the ruler of the demons.’

en ‘in,’ ‘by,’ i.e. ‘in the name of,’ ‘by the power of.’

ho archōn (only here in Mark) ‘ruler,’ ‘chief’: in form it is the present participle of the verb archo ‘to rule.’

ekballei ta daimonia ‘he drives out the demons’ (cf. 1.34).

Translation:

For scribes see 1.22.

In many languages expressions of coming and going, whether up to or down from, are used with great precision and care, something which is not typical of the Gospels. Accordingly, if one is to use such expressions in a translation in a language which maintains a scrupulous consistency in such details of movement, it is obligatory that one maintain the same expressions throughout. Otherwise the reader is likely to be utterly confused.

For expressions dealing with possession see 1.23. A literal translation of this type of expression ‘has Beelzebul’ or ‘is possessed by Beelzebul’ can give rise to entirely wrong meanings. For example in Izthmus Zapotec to say only ‘is possessed by’ would mean ‘to speak filthy words.’ On the other hand, if one wants to designate demon possession, one must say ‘he talks with Beelzebul.’ Despite the fact that the literal expressions in this language do not seem to carry this proportionate scale of intensity in meaning, nevertheless, they do, and what counts is not the literal words but the meaning.

If one wishes to identify Beelzebul with the prince of the demons, one may translate ‘and by this prince of demons’ (San Mateo del Mar Huave).

The last clause of this verse introduces a difficult problem of secondary agency. That is to say, the primary agent is he (i.e. Jesus), but the secondary agent (secondary in terms of the grammatical structure, but primary in importance as far as the scribes were concerned) is the prince of demons. In languages in which such secondary agency can be expressed by a prepositional phrase, as in Greek or English, the problem is simple enough, but in many languages this is not possible. The alternatives are of two types: (1) the secondary agent becomes the primary agent of a causative expression, e.g. ‘the prince of demons causes him to cast out demons’ or ‘… gives him power to cast out…’ (Copainalá Zoque) and (2) the secondary agent becomes the source of power for the accomplishment of an activity, e.g. ‘Jesus receives power from the prince of demons so that he can cast out demons.’

Prince is ‘the chief’ (Copainalá Zoque, Southern Bobo Madaré) or ‘the ruler.’ In Shipibo-Conibo one may say ‘the strong one among the demons.’

For demons see 1.26, 32.

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 .