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 that system one kind of pronoun is used for humans (male and female alike) and one 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 in the following way: “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 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. ).
These two verses can be taken together, since they are linked by the Hebrew words meaning either “how much more” or “how much less,” depending on the context. A similar pattern is found in the speeches of Eliphaz in 4.18-19 and 15.15-16.
Behold, even the moon is not bright: in 15.15b Eliphaz argued that “the heavens are not clean in his sight.” In line b of this verse the stars will be substituted for the “heavens.” Good News Translation has shifted in his sight from line b to the beginning of the verse to reinforce the parallel statement made in verse 4, and so it will apply to both lines of verse 5. In Revised Standard Versionin his sight mistakenly applies only to line b. It is better to translate Behold as “If,” which enables the connection between verses 5 and 6 to be understood, and so “If in God’s eyes even the moon is without brightness…” (Hebrew Old Testament Text Project prefers “… does not shine.”)
And the stars are not clean in his sight: this line reproduces 15.15b, with stars replacing “heavens.” In many languages it will be awkward or impossible to speak of stars being pure or clean. The thought here is that both the moon and the stars fail to shine as they should, and so they are dim. Therefore it will sometimes be possible to translate “and if the stars are dim,” “if the stars give little light,” or, as in Bible en français courant, “and if the stars appear to him (God) as tarnished.”
Verse 6 expresses a negative comparison. How much less man, who is a maggot: the two lines of this verse are closely parallel in meaning and serve to emphasize the insignificance of human beings. To Bildad man is morally worth little because of his humble origins. Man translates the same Hebrew term used in verse 4a and may be rendered “person” or “human being.” The parallel form in line b is son of man, and this means the same as the “human person” in line a. Humankind is likened to a maggot. The same word is used to describe Israel in Isaiah 41.14. The word here translated maggot is used in 7.5; 17.14; 21.26, and in those passages Revised Standard Version translates it “worm.” See the comments on “worm” in 7.5. In those and other passages maggot is associated with a dead body. Only here and in Psalm 22.6 is the term used to express man’s insignificance. According to Dhorme the term is properly maggot, as in Revised Standard Version, and worm (from the verb meaning “to gnaw”) in line b refers to the “earthworm.”
And the son of man, who is a worm: son of man is parallel in meaning to man in line a. This expression represents the poet’s way of intensifying the thought. The heightening of emphasis is not in the pair of terms maggot … worm, but in man … son of man. Since it is the poet’s purpose to depict the insignificance of mankind, translators must find the most effective way to do this. For example, Good News Translation has used the pair “worm” and “insect.” Bible en français courant says “What will become of these miserable humans as insignificant as an ordinary earthworm?” and Biblia Dios Habla Hoy “How much less mankind, this miserable worm.” Good News Translation‘s rendering of the line, “What is man worth in God’s eyes?” does not translate the content of this line but seems to summarize verses 4-6. It is better to stay closer to the text. Due to the complex set of grammatical relations involved in verses 5 and 6, translators may find it necessary to state some aspects of the meaning more directly than the translations cited have done; for example, “If God does not consider the moon and stars to shine brightly, he considers human beings to be even less. To him they are maggots and worms”; “When God looks at the moon and the stars he considers them to be dim lights. When he looks at human beings they are nothing more to him than maggots and worms.”
Quoted with permission from Reyburn, Wiliam. A Handbook on Job. (UBS Helps for Translators). New York: UBS, 1992. For this and other handbooks for translators see here .
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.