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 Wisdom 12:3 - 12:4

Verses 3-7 constitute one long sentence. This sentence is not only complicated in its own right, but it also contains a textual problem in verse 5a and an even more serious problem in verse 5c—the most difficult one in the book, which also is usually seen as a textual problem. The Handbook accepts the Greek text as found in Ziegler or Rahlfs, and interprets the problem in verse 5c not as textual but as grammatical. Our explanation follows. Translators who have no interest in the technicalities may skip the next paragraph and proceed directly to the discussion of 12.3-4 (see our model for verses 3-7 at the end of the discussion on verse 7).

The problem lies in accepting the set phrase, “flesh and blood,” in verse 5b. We think this is misleading. We prefer to take the phrase “and of blood” from the end of verse 5b and place it at the beginning of verse 5c, thus making a linked series of four lines, verses 5a-6a, each beginning with “and.” The verb of this long sentence is in verse 6b, “you wanted to destroy.” The direct object is in verse 3, “the ancient inhabitants.” Verse 4 is a parenthetical insertion, in which the second line spells out what is meant by “detestable practices” in the first line. In verses 5a-6a, the nouns “murderers” (verse 5a), “banqueting” (verse 5b), “initiates” (verse 5c), and “parents who murder” (verse 6a) are a series of accusatives going back to the direct object. The ancient inhabitants of the holy land are thus described as “merciless murderers of children” (verse 5a), “cannibals banqueting on human bodies” (verse 5b), “initiates in the middle of a carnival of blood” (verse 5c), and “parents who murder helpless souls [their own children]” (verse 6a). Verse 7 is a purpose clause, indicating why God wanted the Israelites to destroy the natives of Canaan. The direct object is brought forward to the beginning of the sentence for emphasis, and to signal to the reader that a new topic, the Canaanites, is under discussion.

Those who dwelt of old in thy holy land: Verse 3 begins the section with the direct object of the verb in verse 6. Good News Translation joins verses 3 and 4 in order to begin the sentence with the subject, which is a more natural order in English (or Greek). This is standard operating procedure for Good News Translation, but we should note that the order of the Greek begins the new section more effectively by calling attention to a new topic: the Canaanites. There are ways this can be preserved; for example, “As for those who lived in your holy land long ago” or “And what about the people who lived in your [holy] land long ago [or, before your people settled there]?”

Thou didst hate for their detestable practices may be rendered “you hated them because of the horrible things they did.” The next three lines will name some of those horrible things. Good News Translation places a colon after “horrible things” in order to let the reader know that some are about to be named. This, or some similar device, is helpful here; for example, Contemporary English Version has a dash (—).

Their works of sorcery and unholy rites: Good News Translation renders sorcery as “magic,” which is barely adequate. The Greek noun refers to secret, magic practices that involve the use of drugs, potions, or even poisons. It can also refer to casting spells on people. It is definitely not “magic” as entertainment, but as a serious attempt to harm people. In many cultures sorcery and “magic” are distinguished by the goals they seek to achieve. Magic commands spirits to do what the magician wants. This is achieved by pronouncing specific words in a particular order. The goals of a magician may be good or evil. Sorcery on the other hand is evil by nature. Through the use of items and/or body parts of a victim, a sorcerer seeks to bring suffering upon the victim and never seeks the good of the victim. Many cultures have two distinct terms for magic and sorcery; the one for sorcery should be used here. Rites refers to practices of worship, and unholy means that they did disgusting things while worshiping other gods. Good News Translation expresses this line clearly by expanding the two phrases here into two clauses with two different, but appropriate, verbs: “they practiced magic and conducted unholy worship.” We may also say “they practiced magic and did disgusting things while worshiping their gods.”

Quoted with permission from Bullard, Roger A. and Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on The Wisdom of Solomon. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2004. For this and other handbooks for translators see here.