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

David

The name that is transliterated as “David” in English means “beloved.” (Source: Cornwall / Smith 1997 )

In Spanish Sign Language it is translated with the sign signifying king and a sling (referring to 1 Samuel 17:49 and 2 Samuel 5:4). (Source: John Elwode in The Bible Translator 2008, p. 78ff. )


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

In German Sign Language it is only the sling. (See here ).


“David” in German Sign Language (source )

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

The (Protestant) Mandarin Chinese transliteration of “David” is 大卫 (衛) / Dàwèi which carries an additional meaning of “Great Protector.”

Click or tap here to see a short video clip about David (source: Bible Lands 2012)

Learn more on Bible Odyssey: David .

1st person pronoun referring to God (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 first person singular and plural pronoun (“I” and “we” and its various forms) as shown here in the widely-used Japanese Shinkaiyaku (新改訳) Bible of 2017. The most commonly used watashi/watakushi (私) is typically used when the speaker is humble and asking for help. In these verses, where God / Jesus is referring to himself, watashi is also used but instead of the kanji writing system (私) the syllabary hiragana (わたし) is used to distinguish God from others.

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

See also pronoun for “God”.

Translation commentary on Zechariah 12:10

And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of compassion and supplication: The expression pour out … a spirit of is a metaphor based on the picture of a spirit as a liquid (compare Ezek 39.29; Joel 2.28). In some languages it will not be possible to maintain this picture, and translators will need to consider alternative approaches. Good News Translation, for instance, uses a somewhat different metaphor: “I will fill … with the spirit of mercy of…” (compare New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh, Die Bibel im heutigen Deutsch). Another possibility is “I will inspire … with a spirit of…” (Bible en français courant). If such metaphors are not possible, translators could say “I will give … a spirit of [or, heart/liver of] ….” As a last resort, they could omit the reference to spirit entirely and say “I will make the descendants of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem feel deeply compassionate…” or “… have a willingness to be merciful to others and….”

The house of David again means the families descended from David, and in this context seems to stand for the ruling classes, as in verse 7 and 13.1. The inhabitants of Jerusalem means the rest of the people. The two phrases together then mean “the rulers and people of Jerusalem.”

There is general agreement that a spirit of here represents a human disposition or inclination, as often elsewhere. Compare for instance “the spirit of jealousy” (Num 5.14, 30), “the spirit of wisdom” (Deut 34.9), “a spirit of confusion” (Isa 19.14), and “a spirit of justice” (Isa 28.6).

There is less agreement on the meaning of the terms rendered compassion and supplication. In Hebrew they both derive from the same root. The first term is commonly translated “grace” and is often used of finding favor in the eyes of someone (for instance in Gen 39.4; Exo 33.12; Num 32.5). In this case however, it seems rather to refer to the ability to look upon others with favor. Thus it is rendered in modern versions as compassion (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version), “kindness” (Jerusalem Bible), “pity” (New English Bible/ Revised English Bible, New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh), and “mercy” (Good News Translation). Supplication (Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version) may be addressed to people or to God. Here it probably refers to “prayer” (Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation) to God, which in this context is most likely prayer for forgiveness (compare 2 Chr 6.21; Psa 130.2-4). Translators could therefore express a spirit of compassion and supplication as “a willingness to show kindness to others and to ask pardon from God.” In some languages a longer expression of this kind may be unavoidable.

So that, when they look on him whom they have pierced, they shall mourn for him: The new attitude of kindness and repentance which the LORD gives to the rulers and people of Jerusalem causes them to change their attitude toward something they have apparently done in the past. What this is, however, is far from clear, and it is also uncertain whether the past is recent or more distant. The first problem is to decide what Hebrew text to translate. The traditional text says literally “they shall look unto me whom they have pierced…” (Revised Version). Since the speaker is the LORD, and “me” can refer only to him, this raises the question of how people could be said to pierce the LORD. Some modern translations, including Revised Standard Version/New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and Contemporary English Version, translate a slightly different Hebrew text that yields they look on him whom … (compare John 19.37 and Rev 1.7, where the references to Zech 12.10 are grammatically adjusted to the New Testament context). This clearly makes easier sense, but it has no support among ancient versions, and such weak support in the Hebrew textual tradition that it is not even discussed in Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament or Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Most modern commentators believe the traditional text (“unto me”) should be followed, despite its difficulty.

Some translators who accept the traditional text try to adjust the structure of the sentence to reduce the difficulty. Thus New International Version has “They will look on me, the one they have pierced…” (compare Traduction œcuménique de la Bible). This rendering gives the sense that the LORD is so closely identified with some human representative that he has sent that an attack on the representative is almost the same as an attack on the LORD himself. Presumably the rendering in New English Bible/ Revised English Bible “… on me, on him whom they have pierced…” intends the same interpretation, but the sentence construction is so awkward that the intention is not fully clear.

Another approach to the structure of the sentence is shown in New Jerusalem Bible, which modifies the punctuation in the traditional Hebrew text to create two sentences: “they will look to me. They will mourn for the one whom they have pierced….”

A third possibility is found in Bible en français courant “They will look to me on account of the one they have pierced….”

A fourth possibility is seen in New Jewish Publication Society’s Tanakh “they shall lament to Me about those who are slain….” This view takes the injured party to be plural (“those who”), and to refer to Jews killed in the siege of Jerusalem described in verses 2-8. It assumes that the subject of they have pierced is the besieging armies. While this is possible, it seems an unlikely interpretation, especially in the light of the singular mourn for him in the next clause. It also gives an unusual meaning to the verb most translators render as look on or “look to.” Furthermore, it seems to rule out the strong tradition in both Jewish and Christian interpretation of seeing in this verse a reference to the sufferings of the Messiah.

There is no ideal solution, and all the possibilities discussed have drawbacks. Probably translators would do best to follow either New Jerusalem Bible or New International Version (see above). It may be noted that the verb translated look on suggests confident expectation and hope (compare Psa 34.5; Jonah 2.4).

The word translated pierced refers to a thrust with a sharp weapon like a sword (compare Num 25.8; 1 Sam 31.4). It does not necessarily mean that the resulting wound is fatal, but in the present context where mourning follows, the death of the person pierced seems to be assumed. Thus Good News Translation “whom they stabbed to death” is probably justified. In some languages the verb pierced or “stabbed” will require the mention of a weapon. In such cases translators may say “the one they have stabbed to death with a sword,” or in some cultures “the one they pierced with a spear,” as in Contemporary English Version. However, translators need to be aware of the temptation to say “with a spear” simply in order to fit in with John 19.34-37. This may in fact be the motivation behind the Contemporary English Version choice. It is noticeable that when translating the same Hebrew verb in 13.3, Contemporary English Version says “with a sword.” See also the notes on 13.3. The historical identity of the person referred to is a question that has been debated at great length. Suggestions include Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (2 Chr 24.20-22), King Josiah (2 Kgs 23.29), Zerubbabel (whose fate is unknown), the High Priest Onias the Third (2 Maccabees 4.34-35), and Simon Maccabeus (1 Maccabees 16.14-17), but none of them is widely accepted. Others link the person pierced with the so-called Good Shepherd of 11.4-14, but this too is not convincing. Yet others see a link with the suffering servant of Isa 52.13–53.12; this can be accepted, but it does not help to identify any individual. Fortunately translators do not need to commit themselves on this point. Indeed they must not, since the Hebrew text does not do so. Any additional information should be in a footnote, as in Jerusalem Bible/New Jerusalem Bible, Traduction œcuménique de la Bible, Bible en français courant, and Parola Del Signore: La Bibbia in Lingua Corrente.

They shall mourn for him, as one mourns for an only child, and weep bitterly over him, as one weeps over a first-born: The change of attitude on the part of the leaders and people of Jerusalem leads to their mourning over the one they have pierced, and presumably killed. The mourning is a symbol of sorrow, in this case sorrow for the sin of rejecting one who was evidently the LORD’s representative. The bitterness of the mourning is described in two powerful similes. The first is as one mourns for an only child; such mourning is particularly sad because parents would expect children to look after them in their old age, and the loss of an only child would mean the loss of their security (compare Jer 6.26; Amos 8.10). The second simile is as one weeps over a first-born; a firstborn child was often regarded with special affection, and its death would be felt as a particularly sad loss. Thus the mourning over the pierced one is deep and genuine. Some translators may wish to follow the example of Contemporary English Version, and combine the two clauses as follows:

• They will mourn and weep for him, as parents weep over the death of their only child or their first-born.

Quoted with permission from Clark, David J. & Hatton, Howard A. A Handbook on Zechariah. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 2002. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .