Avoiding The 'it' Word

[GeorgeW]

We see this happening in the bible too where the Israelites always kept slipping back into polytheism even though they made a contract with Yahweh to follow only him because polytheism was what came natural to the Israelites.

 

Good point. Slipping back seems to be a very human trait.

 

George

[NORM]

Yesterday, an inadvertent ‘his’ occurred in this forum in reference to an impersonal God.

 

I have wondered a number of times why, among those who do not believe that God exists as an independent personal being refrain from using the pronoun ‘it.’

 

There seems to be a continuum in Christianity from the most conservative in which both the concept of God and the pronoun are masculine. Then, there are those who believe in a personal God, but with no gender. They refrain from a personal pronoun and often use an awkward (IMO) circumlocution like, ‘God does what God wants because God . . .” Finally, there those, like apparently a number of members of the TCPC, who do not believe in a personal God, but still refrain from the ‘it’ word in reference to God.

 

The authors of the Hebrew Scriptures had no choice (except circumlocution) to avoid gendered personal pronouns as they had no neuter from which to select. However, I am confident that their concept of God was personal and masculine.

 

The writers of the New Testament using Greek had the neuter tool available, but apparently saw God as personal and masculine. (I cannot read Greek, so if someone who does knows of an instance of the neuter pronoun being used in the NT in reference to God, I would be most interested).

 

Of course, we don't know specifically what Jesus used, but preaching, almost certainly in Aramaic, he would not have had access to a neuter pronoun. However, it is reported in multiple places that he spoke of God as father, presumably reflecting the concept of a personal and masculine god. Had he used circumlocutions, this would have been very marked in his society and I suspect it would have been noted and reported.

 

Today, in English, we have the pronoun ‘it’ available and it is a perfectly good English word without negative connotations. We use it to refer to positive things like angels, constitutions, moral values, peace, love, kindness, etc. So, why do those who do not believe in a personal god, refrain from the ‘it’ word?

 

(Note: I have used 'they' and not 'we" above so as to maintain a neutral, hopefully objective, position on the question)

 

George

 

I have been using "It" in reference to G-d for quite some time, and it's just a matter of getting used to it. For the longest time it seemed awkward to me because of my fundamentalist upbringing.

 

I chose to use the word before losing my theistic faith because I've believed for quite some time that G-d is gender neutral. I also do not spell out the name out of respect for my Jewish family (I'm half Jewish).

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

I have been using "It" in reference to G-d for quite some time, and it's just a matter of getting used to it. For the longest time it seemed awkward to me because of my fundamentalist upbringing.

 

I chose to use the word before losing my theistic faith because I've believed for quite some time that G-d is gender neutral. I also do not spell out the name out of respect for my Jewish family (I'm half Jewish).

 

NORM

 

Norm,

 

From some of the previous comments in this thread, I get the impression that the neuter pronoun is sometimes avoided so as to not be disrespectful of traditional Christians and Jews. It is interesting that while Jews neither write the vowels nor pronounce the sacred name, some non-Jews follow the writing convention (omitting the vowel) but have no reservation in pronouncing the word. I assume you pronounce the word.

 

George

[BillM]

George, I waffle on this quite a bit myself. Having spent 40 years in Christianity, it is "natural" for me to call God a "he" although I don't for one second believe that God has a dork. It's taken me years to get comfortable with not capitalizing the "he".

 

As Spong is fond of saying, "If horses had gods, they would look like horses." We are trying to discuss and describe deity with human terms which are all we really have available to us. The Judeo/Christian concept of God, as you know, is one of a super-human. Unless I am grossly wrong (which is possible), this is not a "Christian" forum, (one does not have to be a Christian to participate here), but is called "Christian" because that is its roots (as opposed to progressive Islam or progressive Judaism, etc.). Roots last for a long time.

 

Side note: Technically, for whatever it's worth (which probably ain't much) the Bible does say that God's name is "Jealous" (see Exodus 34:14). So not only is his/her/its (ha ha) name genderless, but it is also an adjective!

[GeorgeW]

Side note: Technically, for whatever it's worth (which probably ain't much) the Bible does say that God's name is "Jealous" (see Exodus 34:14). So not only is his/her/its (ha ha) name genderless, but it is also an adjective!

 

The Hebrew word at Ex. 34:14 qana is masculine since it modifies the masculine name Yahweh. But, the Hebrew author, unlike us, had no neuter alternative to use. Our linguistic gender shows up in pronouns and certain words (like man, girl, actress, etc.). But, in Hebrew it is expressed in agreeing words like verbs and adjectives.

 

George

[NORM]

some non-Jews follow the writing convention (omitting the vowel) but have no reservation in pronouncing the word. I assume you pronounce the word.

 

George

 

Yes, I only retain the writing convention out of respect for my orthodox brothers and sisters. In some ways, the Jewish approach to G-d is similar to my agnostic frame of reference. I really don't quite know how to describe G-d. This is exactly why they do not pronounce Ha Shem - because it is beyond human understanding.

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

Yes, I only retain the writing convention out of respect for my orthodox brothers and sisters. In some ways, the Jewish approach to G-d is similar to my agnostic frame of reference. I really don't quite know how to describe G-d. This is exactly why they do not pronounce Ha Shem - because it is beyond human understanding. When I get a few minutes, I will see what I can find.

 

NORM

 

This practice developed sometime between Biblical Judaism and the 8th-10th cent CE when the Masoretic scripts were prepared. During the period of Biblical Judaism there was no constraint on using God's name (Yahweh). However, when the Masoretes came along, they did not put the vowels into the name and skipped certain letters in the verse counting system because they represented God's name. I don't recall if the Talmud has anything to say about this. If so, that would narrow the time down more precisely and give an early rationale.

 

George

[NORM]

This practice developed sometime between Biblical Judaism and the 8th-10th cent CE when the Masoretic scripts were prepared. During the period of Biblical Judaism there was no constraint on using God's name (Yahweh). However, when the Masoretes came along, they did not put the vowels into the name and skipped certain letters in the verse counting system because they represented God's name. I don't recall if the Talmud has anything to say about this. If so, that would narrow the time down more precisely and give an early rationale.

 

George

 

Like all things in the Jewish community, there are many stories on the origins of things. My understanding is that the convention was adopted with the advent of printed manuscripts. The reason for the skipped vowel is to avoid having Ha Shem defaced by the physical destruction of the paper (accidental or otherwise). I think there is actually a Talmudic reference to this, but danged if I could find it! My CD version of the Talmud doesn't have a search engine!

 

NORM

[GeorgeW]

My understanding is that the convention was adopted with the advent of printed manuscripts. The reason for the skipped vowel is to avoid having Ha Shem defaced by the physical destruction of the paper (accidental or otherwise).

 

NORM

 

Norm,

 

It was a practice before printed manuscripts. The Masoretic manuscripts predate the printing press by centuries. During Biblical Judaism, there was no convention for writing short vowels. A system of diacritics to mark the vowels developed much later. The Masoretic texts (8-10th CE) are fully voweled with the exception of Y.H.W.H (Yahweh). So, the practice developed sometime in the interim. FWIW,a diacritic system also developed about the same time in Arabic. I suspect there is a relationship (i.e. borrowing of the idea) involved.

 

When I get a few minutes, I will see if I can find anything in the Talmudic material I have about this.

 

George

[GeorgeW]

Norm,

 

Okay, I found more than you want to know regarding avoidance of the sacred name (Y.H.W.H) in Judaism. According to Abraham Cohen (“Everyman’s Talmud: The Major Teachings of the Rabbinic Sages”):

 

“In the Biblical period there seems to have been no scruple against its use in daily speech [. . .] But in the early Rabbinic period the pronunciation s of the Name was restricted to Temple service. The rule was laid down: In the Sanctuary the Name was pronounced as written; but beyond it confines a substituted Name was employed [. . .] In the last stage of the Temple’s existence, there was reluctance to give a clear enunciation of the Tetragrammaton. [. . .] On the other hand, there was a time when the free and open use of the Name even by the layman was advocated. The Mishnah teaches: It was ordained that a man should greet his friends by mentioning the Name [. . .] This custom, however, was soon discontinued [ . . .] A third-century Rabbi taught: “Whoever explicitly pronounces the Name is guilt of a capital offense.”

 

So, it seems that this practice evolved over time beginning early in the Rabbinical period. By the 3rd century CE, pronouncing the name was a serious transgression.

 

The Masoretes, in not writing the vowels because it would facilitate pronunciation, would have been following a tradition well established by their time.

 

George