<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://www.xinde.org/show/9301" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This article</a> posits 神甫 is a slightly derogatory term, first used by Qing officials, to address religious Fathers in their official communications to the Emperor. The author supports their argument by a) that 神父 is etymologically orthodox and traceable to the Ming dynasty, and b) that 神甫 is not a loyal translation to 'Father' (despite 甫 potentially being a title for a respectable man), which, in Catholic tradition, is a cordial address to a Priest (<em>Lat.</em> Sarcedos, <em>Chin.</em> 司鐸).</p>
</li>
<li><p>I believe the above argument is not baseless. There are many occasions where historical translations to Western entities are far from decent. Of course, that has more to do with 19th century history.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>大不列顛 Great Britain</li>
<li>煲顛茶, 砵甸乍 Pottinger, first Governor of Hong Kong</li>
<li>爹核士 Davis, second Governor of Hong Kong</li>
<li>麥當奴 MacDonnell, sixth Governor of Hong Kong</li>
</ul>
<ol start="3">
<li>In summary, 神甫 is a historical translation that has been outcompeted by the far more understandable translation 神父. Translative differences do not render 甫 and 父 etymologically connected.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-14T02:55:42.750Z
My opinion is that 父, ("Father"), has to be a latter-day usage, principally with the arrival of Jesuit priests in 14th Century China. The Chinese, ancient or modern, (non-Christians that is), never address any priest, monk or God for that matter as "Father". Calling such people, entity "Father" is a Christian import.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-14T03:03:09.903Z
I agree completely, both 神父 and 司鐸 were respectable translations in the Ming dynasty.
L Parker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-14T02:40:34.247Z
2021-03-14T02:46:10.980Z
2021-03-14T02:46:10.980Z
L Parker
<p>The following sentence can be found in the first chapter of《清江壮歌》by Ma Shitu:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>而且他的经济状况比谁都好，他和他的妻子在一个叫清江中学的教会学校里教书，收入本来不坏，更不同的是他还有一个“吃教饭”的哥哥，在本城天主堂里当神甫，和外国那个主教很要好，自然属于“高等华人”一流，收入是很可观的。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Here <code>神父</code> is written as <code>神甫</code>.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.moedict.tw/%7E%E7%A5%9E%E7%94%AB" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Liang'an</a> says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>神甫<br />
[简] 神父</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Which kind of implies that 甫 is the traditional of 父 and that 父 is the simplified form of 甫. But, that <em>cannot</em> be right, can it?</p>
<p>Does 父 have some sort of a connection to 甫, and vice verse, or is this some sort of anomaly?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-03-13T19:48:25.183Z
父 is (was) the upper sound component of 甫. This warrants a phonetic loan connection. To say that it is the “Simplified” version, well, maybe they mean the PRC spelling standard.
dROOOze
<vocabulary>
Connection between 甫 and 父?
# Connection between 甫 and 父?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-03-13)

The following sentence can be found in the first chapter of《清江壮歌》by Ma Shitu:

> 而且他的经济状况比谁都好，他和他的妻子在一个叫清江中学的教会学校里教书，收入本来不坏，更不同的是他还有一个“吃教饭”的哥哥，在本城天主堂里当神甫，和外国那个主教很要好，自然属于“高等华人”一流，收入是很可观的。

Here `神父` is written as `神甫`.

[Liang'an](https://www.moedict.tw/%7E%E7%A5%9E%E7%94%AB) says:

> 神甫  
> [简] 神父

Which kind of implies that 甫 is the traditional of 父 and that 父 is the simplified form of 甫. But, that *cannot* be right, can it?

Does 父 have some sort of a connection to 甫, and vice verse, or is this some sort of anomaly?

**Tags:** vocabulary
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 父 is (was) the upper sound component of 甫. This warrants a phonetic loan connection. To say that it is the “Simplified” version, well, maybe they mean the PRC spelling standard.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-03-14. Score: 4

1. [This article](https://www.xinde.org/show/9301) posits 神甫 is a slightly derogatory term, first used by Qing officials, to address religious Fathers in their official communications to the Emperor. The author supports their argument by a) that 神父 is etymologically orthodox and traceable to the Ming dynasty, and b) that 神甫 is not a loyal translation to 'Father' (despite 甫 potentially being a title for a respectable man), which, in Catholic tradition, is a cordial address to a Priest (*Lat.* Sarcedos, *Chin.* 司鐸).
2. I believe the above argument is not baseless. There are many occasions where historical translations to Western entities are far from decent. Of course, that has more to do with 19th century history.

* 大不列顛 Great Britain
* 煲顛茶, 砵甸乍 Pottinger, first Governor of Hong Kong
* 爹核士 Davis, second Governor of Hong Kong
* 麥當奴 MacDonnell, sixth Governor of Hong Kong

3. In summary, 神甫 is a historical translation that has been outcompeted by the far more understandable translation 神父. Translative differences do not render 甫 and 父 etymologically connected.

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: My opinion is that 父, ("Father"), has to be a latter-day usage, principally with the arrival of Jesuit priests in 14th Century China. The Chinese, ancient or modern, (non-Christians that is), never address any priest, monk or God for that matter as "Father". Calling such people, entity "Father" is a Christian import.  
> **username_2**: I agree completely, both 神父 and 司鐸 were respectable translations in the Ming dynasty.  

---

