The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version or the Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China 3805004338, 9783805004336

Citation preview

M o n u m e n t a Se r ic a M o n o g r a p h Series

Jost O liver Zetzsche

The Bible in China The History of the Union Version or The Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China

Monumenta Serica Institute • Sankt Augustin

Sumptibus Societads Vcrbi Divini

Die Deutsche Bibliodiek - CIP-Einhdtsaufhahme Zetzsdie, Jost diver: The Bible in China: the history of the Union Version or the culminatio! tion of protestant missionary Bible translation in China / Jost Oliver Zetzsche. Monumenta Serica Institute, Sankt Augustin.Nettetal: Steyler Verl., 1999 (Monumenta serica monograph series ; 45) ISBN 3-80500433-8

Set by the Author, Roman M alek and G erd W adow Copy editors：Roman Malek and G erd W adow Printed by Dmkkerij Steijl B.V. (NL) Distributed by Steyler V erlag Postfach 2460, D-41311 Netetal, Germany Fax (02157) 12 02 22 Copyright: Institut Monumenta Serica Amold-Janssen-Str. 20 D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany Fax: (02241) 20 67 70 E-mail: [email protected] http://www.steyler.de/monumenta.serica

ISBN 3-8050-0433-8 ISSN0179-261X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Abbreviations ................................................................................ 12 Preface

........................................................................................................ 13

1. In t r o d u c t io n .................................................................................................... 19

Part 1: The History of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation from its Beginnings to 1890 2. THE BEGINNINGS OF PROTESTANT BIBLE TRANSLATION ..................... 25 2.1. The Cadiolic Heritage

...................................................................

25

2.2. Translation of the Bible by Morrison and M ilne...............................31 2.2.1. Style of Translation and Textual Basis (33) 2.2.2. Chinese Assistants (39) 2.2.3. Cooperation with Milne (41) 2.2.4. Publication of Translations and Revision (42) 2.2.5. Public Reception (44) 2.3. Translation of the Bible by Marshman and Lassar ......................... 45 2.3.1. Translation Work (46) 2.3.2. Publications (47) 2.3.3. Cadiolic Assistance (49) 2.3.4. Marshman and Morrison: Roots of the Conflict Between Bainists and Other Protestant Denominations in China (49) 2.4. Summary

.............................................................................................56

3. T h e S e c o n d G e n e r a t io n

of

B ib le T r a n sla to r s ...............................59

3.1. New Testament Translation by Medhurst, Giitzlaff, and Bridgman ........................................... 59 3.1.1. Princ^les of Translation and Rejection by Bible Society (62) 3.1.2. Public Reception (66) 3.2.

Translation of Old Testament and Revisions

3.3. The Translation and the Taiping Rebellion 3.4. Summary

................................. 68

.......................................72

..............................................................................................74

Table

6

of

C ontents

4. F i r s t A t t e m p t a t a U n io n V e rsio n ： L o n g -L a st in g D iv isio n s

in t h e

P r o t e s t a n t M is s io n ......................... 77

4.1. Delegates’ Version New Testament Translation................................. 77 4.1.1. Formation of Committee and Principles of Translation (77) 4.1.2. First Meetings of Committee (81) 4.1.3. The Term Question (82) 4.1.4. Continued Meetings of Committee (90) 4.1.5. Chinese Assistants (91) 4.1.6. Style of Language and Principle of Translation (93) 4.1.7. Publications (96) 4.1.8. Old Testament Translation: Split of the Committee (97) 4.1.9. The Difficulty of Nomenclature (100) 4 .2 . London Mission Version .............................................................................. 102 4.2.1. Public Reception (102) 4.2.2. Revision and Conservation (104)

4.3. Bridgman and Culbertson 4.3.1. Revision Attempts (107) 4.4. Summary

................................................................ 104

............................................................................................108

5. S e p a r a t e A c n v m E S ：B a p t i s t T r a n s l a t i o n W o r k 5 .1 . Withdrawal from Delegates’ Version Committee

.......................i l l

......................... I l l

5 .2 . American Baptists.................................................................................113 5.2.1. New Testament Translation by Goddard (113) 5.2.1.1. Cooperation with Dean ( 114) 5.2.1.2. Translation Work (115) 5.2.2. Lord’s Translations and Revisions (116) 5.2.3. Dean's Old Testament Translation and New Testament Revision (118) 5.2.4. Public Reception (118) 5 .3 . British Baptists: H udson...................................................................... 120 5.3.1. Principles of Translation (121) 5 .4 .

Summary........................................................................................... 123

6. V a r io u s T r a n sla tio n s

of

B ib lica l Bo o k s ......................................... 125

6.1. Translations by Chinese ...................................................................... 125 6.1.1. Mark and Luke by Feng Yasheng (125) 6.1.2. Matthew and Mark by He Jinshan (127) 6.1.3. Mark 1-4 by Yan Fu (129)

Table

of

C ontents

6.2. Translations by Western Missionaries 6.2.1. Acts by Gaillard (131) 6.2.2. Mark and Acts by Nevius (131) 6.2.3. John and 1 John by Turner (132) 6.2.4. Hebrews by Dodd (132) 6.2.5. Pentateuch by Wylie (133) 6.3. Russian Orthodox Efforts: New Testament Translation by Gury 6.4. Summary

...................................... 133

..................................................................................... 136

7. M a n d a r i n ：D is c o v e r y o f a U n g u a F r a n c a ..................................... 139

7.1. The First Mandarin New Testament Translation: Nanking Version ..................................................................... 141 7.1.1. Principles of Translation (143) 7.2. Burns's Mandarin Translation of the P salter.................................144 7.3. Peking Version New Testament Translation .............. 7.3.1. Formation of Committee (146) 7.3.2. Proceedings of Committee (147) 7.3.3. Style of Language and Textual Basis (148) 7.3.4. Editions and Publication (149) 7.3.5. Revision Attempts (150)

145

7.4. Schereschewsky's Mandarin Old Testament Translation and Revisions........................................................：. 151 7.4.1. Translation Work (152) 7.4.2. Publication and Public Reception (153) 7.4.3. Revision Work on Old Testament and Peking Version (154) Assistants (158)

8. L o w e r C l a s s i c a l ：T r a n o f t h e B ib le i n t o a L o w e r F o r m o f t h e L it er a r y L a n g u a g e

8.1. Griffith John’s Translation into Lower Classical 8.1.1. Principles Princi] of Translation (165) Questi of Greek Text (167) 8.1.2. Question 8.1.3. Continuation of Old Testament Translation (168) 8.1.4. Revision Work (169) 8.2. Griffith John’s Mandarin Translation: British Attempts Toward a Mandarin Union Version 8.2.1. Textual Basis and Publication (173)

161 163

170

8

T able

of

C ontents

8.3. New Testament Translation by Burdon and Blodget: Further A tten d s Toward a Union Version........... 8.3.1. Textual Basis (176) 8.3.2. Reception (178) 8.4. Schereschewsky’s Translation and Revision into Lower Classical ............................................ 8.4.1. Textual Basis (180) 8.4.2. Publication, Revision, and Public Reception (181)

te

Sum m a ry

and

C o n c l u sio n

Part 2: The Union Version 10. T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e ...................................................... 10.1. Decisions for a Union Version..................................................... 10.2. Organizational Rules for Translation.......................................... 10.3. Election of Executive Committees

..........................................

10.4. The Bible Societies and the Decision for a Union Version

....

10.5. Election of Translation Committees .......................................... 10.5.1. The Easy Wenli Committee (205) 10.5.1.1. John: Personal Hurt and Rejection of the Translation Scheme (206) 10.5.1.2. Faber: Term Question, Basis Text, and Different Ideas of Translation (209) 10.5.2. The High Wenli Committee (212) 10.5.3. The Mandarin Committee (216) 10.5.3.1. Formation of the Mandarin Committee After 1891 (218) 10.5.4. Summary (221) 11. U n io n V e rsio n ：N ew T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t io n ............................. 11.1. Meeting of Translation Committees in Shanghai

....................

11.2. Easy Wenli Translation................................................................ 11.2.1. Proceedings and Meetings of Committee (228) 11.2.2. Textual Basis and Principles of Translation (232) 11.2.3. B印tist Editions of the Union Version (238) 11.3. High Wenli Translation................................................................ 11.3.1. Proceedings of Committee (241)

Table

11.3.2. 11.3.3. 11.3.4. 11.3.5. 11.3.6.

of

9

C ontents

A First Result: New Testament Translation by Chalmers and Schaub (243) Meetings and New Formation of Committee (247) Chinese Assistants (251) Textual Basis and Principles of Translation (252) Revision Work (254)

11.4. Mandarin Translation .................................................................255 11.4.1. Proceedings and First Meeting of Committee (255) 11.4.2. Constitution of Committee (256) 11.4.2.1. Western Translators (258) 11.4.2.2. Chinese Assistants (260) 11.4.3. Continued Meetings of Committee (264) 11.4.3.1. Owen and Cheng Jingyi (268) 11.4.4. Completion and First Revision of New Testament (269) 11.4.5. Comparison of 1907 Edition witti Earlier Editions (274) 11.4.6. Greek Basis Texts (276) 11.4.7. Chinese Basis Texts (278) 11.5. Summary....................................................................................... 282 12. T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e ........................................................285 12.1. Combination of the Classical Union Versions ...............................285 12.2. Resolutions for the Further Course of Translation..................... 288 12.3. Question of Harmonizing die Mandarin

and Classical New Testaments

.................................................290

12.4. Executive and Translation Committees ......................................291 12.5. Summary....................................................................................... 295 13. Union Version: Old Testament Translation

................................ 297

13.1. Wenli Translation .......................................................................297 13.1.1. Proceedings and Meetings of Committee (298) 13.1.2. Editorial Work (304) 13.1.3. Question of New Testament and Publication of Wenli Bible (305) 13.1.4. Revision of New Testament (306) 13.2. Mandarin Translation ................................................................. 307

13.2.1. 13.2.2. 13.2.3. 13.2.4.

New Testament Translation by Sydenstricker (311) Re-Formation of Committee (314) Continuation of Union Version Committee Work After Resignation of Sydenstricker (315) Full Support by Bible Societies (316)

10

T able

13.2.5. 13.2.6. 13.2.7.

of

C ontents

Chinese Assistants (319) Editorial Work and Revision of Old Testament (321) Revision of New Testament (322)

13.3. S u m m a ry ................................................................................. 14. V

14.1.

on：D e v e lo p m e n ts a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n .

Reception ......................................

14.2. Continued Translation Efforts of Chinese Union Version Translators ........... 14.2.1. Wang Yuande (336) 14.2.2. Zhu Baohui (339) 14.3. Continued Reception of the Union Version..... 14.3.1. First Attempts of Revision (345) 14.3.2. Concrete Action on a Revision (346) 14.3.3. Reasons for Failure of Revision Plan (348) 14.3.4. Final Union Version Revision Attempts (350) 14.3.4.1. Principles of Revision (351) 14.3.5. Moderate Revisions of Union Version (354) 14.3.5.1. United Bible Societies’ Efforts (354) 14.3.5.2. Baptist Efforts (355) 14.3.5.3. Mainland Efforts (356) 14.3.6. Revision Efforts in Mainland China (357) 14.4. Summary............................................................ 15. C o n c l u s i o n

15.1. 15.2. 15.3. 15.4. 15.5. 15.6. 15.7. 15.8.

...............................................................

Perception of Style (363) Perception of Translation (365) Chinese Assistants (366) Conflict-Avoiding Strategies (366) Questions of Personality (367) The Bible Societies (367) Overcoming the Haste (368) Conservatism and Revision (369)

16. B i b l i o g r a p h y ...............................................................

16.1. Unpublished Material (371) 16.2. Published Material (379) 16.3. Bible Versions (400)

T a ble

17. APPENDICES

of

C ontents

11

....................................................................................405

17.1.1. Chart 1: Chinese Protestant Bible Translations from the Beginnings to the Union Version: Dates of Publication and Publishing Houses (405) 17.1.2. Chart 2: Chinese Protestant Bible Translations firom the Beginnings to the Union Version: Publication Dates and Styles of Language (407) 17.1.3. Chart 3: Union Version Publications (409) 17.2. Agents of the American and the British and Foreign Bible Societies (411) 17.3. List of Bible Translations Unconnected with the Union Version (411) 17.3.1. Continuation of Protestant Chinese Bible Translation (411) 17.3.2. Protestant Translations in Preparation (417) 17.3.3. Ecumenical Translations in Preparation (418) 17.3.4. Catholic Chinese Bible Translations: Published Attempts (418) 17.3.5. Additional Bibliography of Works Not Listed in Bibliognq)hy (422) I n d e x ........................................................................................................................... 427

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 1. R. Morrison with two Chinese assistants, p. 39. 2. Marshman/Lassar's translation of John, p. 48. 3. Questionnaire on the “Compromise Term,” p. 89. 4. S.I.J. Schereschewsky with two assistants, p. 159. 5. Manuscript of D.Z. Sheffield’s translation of 1 John, p. 250. 6. High Wenli Union Version translation committee, 1905, p. 251. 7. Mandarin Union Version translation committee, undated, p. 264. 8. Mandarin Union Version translation committee, 1900, p. 266. 9. Manuscript of C. Goodrich’s translation of Revelation, p. 271. 10. Wenli Union Version translation committee, undated, p. 303. 11. Mandarin Union Version translation committee, 1913, p. 320. 13. Mandarin Union Version translation committee, 1915, p. 321.

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ABCF

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions

ABMU

American Baptist Missionary Union

ABS

American Bible Society

APM

American Presbyterian Mission

BFBS

British and Foreign Bible Society

BMS

Baptist Missionary Society

CIM

China Inland Mission

CMS

Church Missionary Society

DOHPC GMC

Department of History, Presbyterian Church General Missionary Convention of the B^Hist Denominations in the United States

LMS

London Missionary Society

NBSS

National Bible Society of Scotland

NT

New Testament

OT

Old Testament

PREFACE

The complex history of Chinese Bible translations stands in sharp contrast to the lack of scholarly material related to it. Like many other topics in the realm of Christian mission, there are a good number of articles, pamphlets, or even books written on this subject, but these are mostly from a hagiographic or often very superficial point of view, in spite of the vast amounts of unused material available, especially in mission archives. Most of the Protestant missionary societies, because of their dependence on a support­ ing community, most carefully collected and preserved material from their missionaries on the mission field in order to justify their activities to their supporters. Though many of these missionary letters and reports were pub­ lished in the missionary societies' journals or annual reports, only selected parts were included; any passages which dealt with conflicts, doubts, or other forms of criticism—for a historian the most interesting and revealing excerpts—were left out. In the last three decades, some research involving this archival material has been initiated on topics related to the Protestant mission, especially but not exclusively under the auspices of the late J.K. Fairbank (1907-1991) of Harvard University. Many of these studies focused on the material of one or two mission archives, a luxury of perspective that a study on the history of Bible translation must transcend to do justice to the diverse groups of missionaries involved in Chinese Bible translation. The specific topic of Protestant Bible translation in China has not en­ tirely escaped notice in the recent past. In the 1950s and 1960s, Robert P. Kramers of the Netherlands Bible Society in Hong Kong published and collected a number of articles on the developments and the history of mod­ em Bible translation in the post-1919 (post-Union Version) era. During the 1970s and earlier, Liu Yiling from Hong Kong wrote and edited several publications concerning the Union Version and other modem translations. And even more recently, Zhu Weizhi and his student Liang Gong from mainland China have published a great number of contributions on the Chi­ nese Bible and literature, a topic that works by Robinson (1986), Gdlik (1993), and others also cover. The earlier history of Chinese Bible transla­ tion has also been touched upon over the years, including publications by

14

Prefa ce

Cheng Zhiyi (1947), Li Shiyuan (1978), Xu Mushi (1983), Luo Xurong (1988), Yang Senfii (1991), Wang Weifan (1992), Wen Yong (1992), and I-Jin Loh (1995). Zhao Weiben’s study (1993) covers some earlier history as well, but it is more significant for its large collection of material dealing with the development of modem translation history. And a contribution to the linguistic understanding of Chinese Bible translation was offered by Strandenaes's comparison of five different translations of the Bible (1987), including the versions by Morrison and Milne (pub. 1823), the Delegates' Version (pub. 1852), and the Union Version (pub. 1919). However, none of the above-mentioned studies (with the exception of Strandenaes to a slight degree) includes archival material, and if they refer to die pre-1919 era in historical terms, this is usually on tfie basis of missionaiy publications or the catalog of the British and Foreign Bible Society by Spillett (1975, based largely on Darlow/Moule 1903). As displayed by the June 1996 conference in Jerusalem— in Mod­ em China: The Literary and Intellectual /^poc/1—recognition of the sig­ nificance of Bible translation in China has reached its perhaps highest point in this half of the 20th century. In his 1987 dissertation, Strandenaes wrote: While awaiting a general history of Chinese Bible translation, it is desir­ able that several limited, in-depth studies be made to provide reliable answers to some questions with which a comprehensive treatment of Chinese Bible translation will have to deal.2 The present study tries to serve this purpose by contributing to one aspect of the history of Chinese Bible translation: the history of the most widely known translation in China, the Union Version. The lack of reliable material on the earlier history of Protestant Chinese Bible translations necessitates the historical sketch in the first part of this study to place the Union Version in its proper context. Catholic translation efforts are considered in their very early stage, the only time of influence to the Protestant development. The same accounts for the Orthodox translation by Gury (pub. 1864), which was used as a basis version by several Protes­ tant translators. The great number of translators involved in the Protestant Bible transla­ tion history of before and during the Union Version translation called for a

1

See Irene Eber, Sze-kar Wan, and Knut Waif (eds.) in collaboration with Roman Malek, Bible in Modem China. The Literary and Intellectual Impact. Monumenta ies x l h i (St. Augustin - Nettetal 1999). [Ed.]

Prefa ce

15

strict limitation of biographical information. The theological or professional background of the involved persons that plays an inq>ortant role in other studies was thus not considered in any detail; for a significant number of them tiiere are full-length biographies available, though.3 Despite the fact that much of the Bible translation work in China was done in the so-called dialects, this study is only concerned with the devel­ opments in **Chinese proper," a term which designates those styles of Chi­ nese used throughout China, including the different forms of classical Chi­ nese and Mandarin.4 Only the versions translated into Chinese proper had any considerable influence on the Union Version. This study deals with a historical description of the Union Version. The textual examples quoted should therefore be understood as illustrations rather than close linguistic analysis.3 The exan^les are in all cases taken from the New Testament, and in most cases from the first chapter of the Gospel of Jdm (John l6), which was chosen because of its great theological importance, especially of the Prologue (John 1:1-18). Furtfiermore, it con­ tains many of the controversial terms that played a role in the history of Bible translation, and it has a unique mixture of different levels of speech: a theoretical level and a narrative level, as well as direct speech. The English translations are, if not noted otherwise, from the New American Standard Bible (rev. ed. 1977) because of its reputation as “a good study Bible that accurately reflects the wording of die original lan­

3

Including biographies on Robert Morrison, Joshua Marshman, K.F.A. GOtzlafT, Wang Tao, W.A.P. Martin, S.I.J. Schereschewsky, Griffith John, F.W. Bailer, C.W. Mateer, or A. Sydenstricker.

4

Although Karlgren (1951, 107) calls it “a well-known fact that the difference bet­ ween literary Chinese and colloquial Chinese is so great as to make them constitute two different languages, not only different styles," this paper will continue to refer to "styles" of Chinese rather than **languages" in regard to Mandarin and classical Chinese. This is done to reflect the missionaries' and Bible translators’ understand­ ing of Chinese, but also because of the otherwise problematic description of iittermediary forms of Mandarin and classical Chinese used in Bible translation. For "classical Chinese" and “Mandarin,” see ch. 1.

5

In an earlier study (1993), the author has dealt with a linguistic comparison of a number of Chinese Bible translations.

6

The abbreviations for the biblical books follow the commonly used form. Their sequence is also according to common usage, excluding the Apocryphal works (i.e., 1 Ctaron. - Song Sol. includes only the books 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nebemia, Esther, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Solomon).

16

Prefa ce

guages.”7 The Greek text is given if the translation into English would have obstructed the point to be made. Chinese characters are used for the first ^>pearance of personal Chinese names, but names of places are only given in characters for historical names, such as Zhifii 之苯 for today’s Yantai/Shandong. The translitera­ tions are given in the pinyin system of romanization with the exceptions of “Peking” (Beijing or Beiping), “Nanking” (Nanjing), and “Canton” (Guang­ zhou), in wiiich cases the modem transliteration would jar the sensibilities in a historical thesis about die last century's mission in China. Textual ex­ amples exceeding single phrases are not transliterated. The support which I needed to complete this study was immense, and I am most sincerely thankful for the numerous forms of support that I received. The staffs at the archives and libraries which I visited, many of whose members took hours or days to help me with my research, deserve so many thanks. To avoid the danger of forgetting some individuals, I will only list the institutions that I visited and where I received generous help: American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge; American Bible Society Archives, New York; American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Ar­ chives, Harvard University, Cambridge (Mass.)；Baptist Missionary Soci­ ety Archives, Regent’s Park College, Oxford; Baptist Press, Hong Kong; Basler Mission Archives, Basel; British and Foreign Bible Society Ar­ chives, Cambridge University Library; Chinese Church Research Centre, Hong Kong; Church Missionary Society, London; Council for World Mis­ sion Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London; Hong Kong Bible Society, Hong Kong; Lutheran Theological Seminary, Hong Kong; Monumenta Serica Institute, St. Augustin; Presbyterian Office of History, Philadelphia; Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, Ostasienabteilung, Berlin; Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Hong Kong; Tien Dao Publishing House, Hong Kong; University of Hong Kong, Fung Ping Shan Library, Hong Kong; Vereinigte Evangelische Mission, Wuppertal; Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, Stuttgart. Many other institutions furnished me with information and very valuable material by correspondence, including: American Baptist Historical Soci­ ety, Rochester; Berliner Missionswerk, Berlin; Bible Society in the Repub­ lic of China, Taibei; China Evangelical Seminary Press, Taibei; Episcopal Church Archives, Austin; Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist 7

Comfort 1992b, 283. The above quotation continues: "... yet is not a good Bible translation for Bible reading," a characteristic which is of no relevance for its use in this paper.

Prefa ce

17

Convention, Richmond; General Commission on Archives» and History, United Methodist Church, Madison; Methodist Church, Overseas rseas Division, London; National Bible Society of Scotland, Edinburgh; Overseas Mission­ ary Fellowship, Sevenoaks; Presbyterian Church, Department of History, Montreat; United Bible Societies, Reading; United Reformed Church, Lon­ don. Prof. Dr.Dr. Jutta Rall-Nhi, Hamburg, was one of the first to encourage and support this project. Throughout the long process of writing she has given me much helpful advice for which I am greatly indebted. Other individuals have also given me advice, correction, encourage­ ment, or otherwise supported my project. I am especially thanldiil to Prof. Dr. Theodor Ahrens, Jens Amann, Dr. Jonathan Chao, Fr. Theobald Diederich O.F.M ., Prof. Irene Eber, Prof. Dr. Michael Friedrich, Stefan Maedje, Prof. Dr. Roman Malek S.V.D.， Dr. Eugene A. Nida, John D. Stephens, Prof. Dr. Bemward Willeke O.F.M. (1913-1997), and my parents-in-law and most faithful encouragers, Jerome and Donna Kenagy. This study is printed with the support of the Monumenta Serica Institute and the University of Hamburg. Other financial support came from many friends, without which this study would still have a long way to go: I am extremely grateful for that. Kristen, my wife, not only participated in this study by proofreading it (for which I am very thankful) and by patiently listening to endless mono­ logues on problems of Chinese Bible translation, but even more by allow­ ing me to do this work through putting her own interests as secondary for the time being, thus giving me every means of freedom and support that I could wish for. I have no adequate means of expressing my thankfulness for that.

INTRODUCTION “And tbe Word became flesh, and dwelt among us"

道成了肉身*住在我們中間 (John 1:14) "There is a history of translation of the Bible because there was a translation of the Word into flesh." (Walls 1990, 24)

The beginnings of Protestant missions in general and in China in particular are closely connected with Bible translation. The publication of William Carey's (1761-1834) manifesto in 17921 is considered to be the starting point for the modem mission movement.2 Carey went to India the follow­ ing year, and in 1799 he founded a mission in Serampore together with William Ward (1769-1823) and Joshua Marshman (1768-1834) which had its main focus on literary work. In the years from 1799 until 1832, works in more than forty languages were published by the Serampore Press, among them many biblical books, Testaments, or complete Bibles, such as the first complete Chinese Bible in 1822. Its translator, Marshman, had no Chinese language material whatsoever in the first few years of his transla­ tion work, and he relied fully in his translation on his colleague, Joannes Lassar, a young Armenian who had grown up in Macao. In China itself, another Bible translation project was underway which was coiiq)leted in 1823, one year aft^r the Seran屯ore translation. Its main translator was the first Protestant missionary in China, Robert Morrison (1782-1834), who today is still revered as the father of the Protestant mis­ sion in China. Morrison had the aid of a Latin-Chinese dictionary transcript and, even more important, the transcript of an incomplete Catholic translation of the New Testament, which he used extensively for his own translation. His 1 An Enquiry Into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen in which the State of the Different Nations of the World, tbe Success of Former Undertakings, and the Practicability of Further Undertakings, are Consid­ ered (Leicester, 1792). 2 See W.R. Shenk, in Smalley 1991, IX.

20

C h apter 1

activities were confined to a partly secretive life in Canton with native teachers who taught him Chinese under the threat of severe punishment from their own government. Morrison thus had no concept of different styles of Chinese, of a literary and a spoken language, but he could copy and imitate the language of the Catholic New Testament translation in his possession. He worked diligently on the compilation of language material, enabling him to publish a grammar of Chinese in 1815 and a six-volume dictionary of Chinese from 1815 through 1823, both of which would give consider­ able aid to later translators in the attempt to understand the different styles of Chinese. Morrison himself only slowly realized the diversity of style. He lived in Canton and was thus surrounded by the Cantonese dialect, which differed significantly from both the written language and other dia­ lects, including the so-called Mandarin. But when he started to work on his New Testament translation—the first part of the New Testament was pub­ lished three years after his arrival in China—he was not aware of the possi­ bility of writing in any style other than classical Chinese. “Classical Chinese” refers to the style which was used throughout Chi­ nese literature and modeled after the canonical books, especially the Sishu and the Wujing? Nevertheless, it was not the only style of Chinese used in literature. Especially in the novels of the Ming and Qing dynasties,4 a less terse style of classical Chinese was employed that contained some elements of the spoken language as well, and for this reason it was often erroneously

1

The “Five Canonical Books" (Wujing 五經）refers to a canon of books established during the Western Han dynasty (206 B.C. - A.D. 8) consisting of Book of History {Shujing 咨經)，Book of Songs (Shijing 詩經> ,Spring and Autumn Annals (Chunqiu 春6 ) , Book of Changes (Yijing 易經)，and Book of Rites (Liji 禮紀) . The “Four Books” (Sishu 四咨）refers to the canon of Confucian classics finally established un­ der the philosopher Zhu Xi 朱 哀 (1130-1200), consisting of Great Learning (Daxue 大學)，Doctrine of the Mean (Zhongyong 屮廣)，Analects {Lunyu 論語)，and the book Mencius {Mengzi 孟子) . All of these works were written during the Zhou dy­ nasty (1027-256 B.C.), and their language is classified by Dobson (1962, Xinff.) as belonging to Early and Late Archaic Chinese.

4

This refers especially to the four great novels (x ia o s h u o 說〉of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644), Sanguozhi yanyi 三國志谢I? (History of Three Kingdoms), Shuihu zhuan 水 滸 傳 （Outlaws of the Marsh), Jinping mei 金瓶梅（The Plum in the Golden Vase), and Xiyou ji 西 游 記 (Journey to the West); and two of the Qing dynasty (1644-1911), Rulin waishi 儒 林 夕 (The Scholars) and Honglou meng 紅樓系 (Dream of Red Mansions).

I n t r o d u c t io n

21

referred to as “Mandarin”. “Mandarin”3 denotes the language that was the most widely spread form of spoken Chinese in the Chinese empire, based on the language spoken in Peking. Only a small number of literary works in Mandarin were in existence at the beginning of the Protestant missionary era in China. The question and definition of style was one of the most controversial topics in the history of Chinese Bible translation. The first generation of missionaries, who were confined in their activities to Chinese communities outside of China or to Canton and Macao, did not have sufficient knowl­ edge of matters of style. Later missionaries learned enough about the pos­ sibilities of Chinese to define different styles as means of gaining influei ience on different groups of Chinese society. The classical Chinese of the classics was considered by some as a potential key to gaining influence on die literati, who were thought of as key figures in Chinese society—a concept similar to that held by the Jesuits of the 17th and 18th centuries6—whereas other translators supported a lower form of classical Chinese, or Mandarin, for Bible translation to gain access to a greater range of people—in its con­ ception a much more genuine Protestant point of view. This conflict was only one of the many woven into the very fabric of the history of missionary Bible translation in China. The other main points of conflict dealt with terminology, as will be especially pointed out in the translation of the^two most controversial terms—“baptism” and “God ”一 and in a difference in the understanding of translation principles. All of these conflicts were intermingled with questions of nationalism and denominationalism. When the missionaries came to their mission field, they by no means disassociated themselves from the doctrinal orientation of their de­

5

The term “Mandarin” refers to the Chinese term guanhua 官 話 一“language of of­ ficials (Mandarins)". Guanhua was replaced in 1910 wilh guoyu 國 甜 一“national language" (see Norman 1988, 134), which after a long debate was officially defined in 1913 as the Chinese national language. Only in 1932, however, was a dictionary on the basis of the Peking dialect published as the standard for guoyu. This term is still used in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the south of China, whereas the rest of China uses today’s official term putonghua 普通話 一“common speech"—which was coined as such in 1956 by the mainland Chinese government (see Ramsey 1987, 9ff.). Another term which was especially used from the turn of the century on was the term baihua 白言舌—**colloquial language"—for written Mandarin employed in literature. This thesis will use the term **Mandarin" throughout for reasons of clar­ ity, even though it is no longer the officially used term and encompasses a variety of spoken and written entities.

6

See Latourette 1929, 185ff.; cf. 4.1.6.

22

C h apter 1

nominations; in fact, many saw their work in China as a great opportunity to establish their particular church in opposition and con^etition to other Protestant churches. Bible translation was the first and for a long time the only field of cooperation among the Protestant missionaries of different denominations, a condition which helps to explain the inevitable conflict among the missionary translators. The inqx)rtance that the missionaries and the missionary societies attributed to Bible translation, and especially a common version, can be estimated by the fact that it was a major topic at three of tiie four general mission conferences. The first conference in Hong Kong in 1843, though usually not considered one of the major general con­ ferences, had a common version as the only point of concern; at the gen­ eral conferences in 1877 and 1907, long discussions about Bible transla­ tions were held; and the 1890 general conference was to a great degree centered around the decision to launch a common Bible translation, the Union Version. Thus it certainly would not be exaggerated to state that not only the starting point but also one of the central questions of the Chinese Protestant mission was the question of Bible translation.

Part 1

The History of Protestant Missionary Translation from its Beginnings to 1890

2

THEBI BEGINNINGS OF PROTESTANT >TESTANT BIBLE TRANSLATION

2.1. The Catholic Heritage The history of Chinese Bible translation possibly dates back to the very beginnings of Christianity in China, the introduction of Nestorianism dur­ ing the Tang dynasty (618-906).1 No completely translated biblical book from this period has been found as of the present time, yet there is strong evidence in other Nestorian writings2 and in reports of travelers in China3 that there was a translation of some books or even the conq>lete Bible into Chinese. The historical roots of Catholic Bible translation in China are almost as vague. In 1305, Giovanni da Monte Corvino (1247-1328), sent by the Pope to China, reported on his literary activities: Didici competenter linguam et litteram Tartaricham, quae lingua usualis Tartarorum, et iam transtuli in lingua ilia et littera totum novum Testamentum et Psalterium, quae feci scribi i pulcerriam littera eorum.4 Most writers agree that the “language and writing of the Tartars" would have been Mongolian, the language of the court during the time of the Yuan dynasty (1280-1368), yet some consider Giovanni’s translation to possibly be Chinese.5 His manuscript, like many other later ones, is lost, making a final conclusion impossible.

1 Some writers allude to a rather legendary beginning of Christian history in China and possibly Bible translation dating back to Thomas, one of the apostles who is supposed to have started mission work in China (see Moseley 1801, 10-11; Gamier/ Feng 1934, 146-147; Cheng 1947, 1). 2 See Wylie 1897, 89; Saeki 1937, 86; Yang 1991,350-353; Wang 1992,

71-73.

3 See Wylie 1897, 90-93; Broomhall 1934, 22-23. 4 Quoted in Streit 1928, vol. IV, No. 93. 5 See Spillett 1975. IX; Gu 丨 991，435; Studium Biblicum 1981, 121; Wen 1992, 32.

26

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

The very first printed part of a Catholic Bible translation did not appear until 1892,6 though there were other attempts made before the introduction of Protestantism to China, mostly in the form of missals or breviaries,7 and at least three Catholic missionaries of this early period started to translate the Bible or parts thereof into Chinese.8 The translation of Genesis and parts of Exodus into colloquial Chinese by the Franciscan missionary Antonio Laghi (d. 1727) has entirely escaped attention in other literature about Bible translation.9 Laghi apparently passed his translation on to Francesco Jovino (1677-1737), also a Francis­

6

For a list of Catholic versions, see appendix, ch. 17.2.4.

7

See Willeke 1960.

*

There are other Catholic manuscript translations of later periods. A translation of at least the New Testament a^arently took place at the Collegio dei Cinesi di Napoli, founded by Matteo Ripa (1682-1746) in 1732 (see Mayer’s report on a Chinese New Testament translation used at the college, in Prandi 1846, 173). The Portuguese Lazarist Joaquim Alfonso Gongalvez (1780-1841) also apparently translated the New Testament (see Streit/Dindinger 1959, vol. XIII, 345; Willeke 1960, 286). His biog­ rapher and friend Callery (1846, 74) reported, though, that Goncalvez denied the allegation that the translation was his. Other non-published translations include the Gospels (1875) and Acts (1883) of Thomas Wang (Wang Duomo 工多默）in Manda­ rin or the four Gospels by Francis Xin (Xin Fangji 辛方濟）in classical Chinese. Both manuscripts were stored in Xujiahui (see Bondfield 1915, 468; Studium Bibli­ cum 1981, 124). A translation of the book of Tobit by the French Jesuit Francois D'Entrecolles (1663-1741) was published in Peking during his lifetime. This is not included in this work on Protestant Chinese Bible translation because Tobit is con­ sidered non-canonical by the Protestant Church.

9

Owing to the generosity of Prof. B.H. Willeke (1913-1997), the author was given a transcript of a letter from Jovino to Horatii of Feb. 13, 1726. It reads: “Scusi per6 il buon desiderio e genio alio studio della lingua e caratteri Cinesi. Fui a questo motivato da Mons. Lorimense [Antonio Laghi], il quale in lingua vernacula la volt6 quasi ad litteram la Genesi e mezzo l’Esodo. Io leggendolo lo trovai molto poco conveniente e per giudicio anche de Cristiani Letterati meglio era a non farlo andar per le mani de Cristiani. Da questo mi mossi a riformarlo, aggiungerli qualche distinzioni morale, e proseguirl, .... come ho fatto sino al mezzo libro de Giudici. Aspetto l'oracoio di Sua Rev.ma ed altri miei maestri, a] di cui censura son pronto obedire ...” （“Forgive my eager desire and inclination regarding the study of the Chinese language and writing. I was motivated in that by Mons. Lorimense [Antonio Laghi], who almost literally turned Genesis and half of Exodus into colloquial language. As I was reading it, I did not think it very suitable, and Christian literati also judged that it would be better not to come into the hands of Christians. Therefore, I started to revise it, add some moral distinctions and continue ... as I have done to the book of Judges. I wait for the verdict from your Honor and other teachers, whose censure I am willing to obey . . . ” (translation with the help of A. Rodon6).

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

27

can, who found it unacceptable because it was “almost literal." Jovino himself set ajbout to revise these parts and continue with the translation, and, when he had come as far as the book of Judges (apparently Tobit and Daniel were among the translated books also, see below), he sent it to the Franciscan Carlo Horatii (1673 - ca. 1759). Horatii, an authority as a si­ nologue,10 strongly advised Jovino not to circulate the translation. In his opinion, a Chinese translation of the Bible should not be made before China had experienced a “remarkable conversion," and then a committee of learned Europeans and Chinese should make a translation which in its “correctness, elegance, and majesty" would be worthy of somediing so “exalted, holy and full of mysteries."11 Jovino submitted to his judgment and assured him that he only owned one copy of the translation; he did, however, want to take the liberty of having Christians read in the books of Tobit and Daniel.12 Today no known manuscript of this work exists. The Jesuit Louis de Poirot (1735-1813) worked as a translator at the court in Peking ftom his earliest adolescence. He translated almost the conq>lete Bible, with the exception of most of the Prophets13 and the Song of Songs, between 1750 and 1800. The manuscript was stored in the Beitang library in Peking where it was destroyed in 1949. Fortunately, a copy had been made for the library in Xujiahui (Zikawei),14 and another partial photographic copy by G.M. Allegra (1908-1976) for the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, in whose library in Hong Kong it is still pre­

10 See Vincentiis 1904, 126; cf. Willeke 1960, 285. 11 The letter of Aug. 26, 1726 (quoted in Vincentiis 1904, 126) reads in the original: "che detti libri non possano imprimersi devano correre, salvo meliore judicio (...) E quando poi sari necessario, e notabile conversione nella Cina, all'hora si potii pigliare espediente di fare la versione della Sacra Scrittura coll'adunanza non solo de'letterati e dottori Europei, ma anco deMetterati e dottori Cinesi, e £ eutU conpoprieti, decoro e maesti conforme una cosa si alta, santa e piena di misterii richjede." 12 The respective passage of the letter of Oct. 8, 1726 (quoted in Vincentiis 1904, 624) reads: “Mi sottometto di buon cuore k quasi tutto il discorso, che & promettendo los averne solo un esemplare e con segretezza, riserbandomi solo la liberty di far leggere a Christiani capaci li due libretti di Tobia e Daniello, e questo ancbe con cautela.” 11 He did translate the prophetic books of Isaiah, Daniel, and Jonah, though. Jonah is not part of the manuscript in Xujiahui (see Xu 1949, 18-20) but was part of the edi­ tion in Peking (see Studium Biblicum 1981, 123). 14 See Beckmann 1965, 50. Recent publications mention that the manuscript is still in the library in Xujiahui (see Xie 1984, 29; Dehergne 1986. 226; Luo 1988. 36).

28

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 2

served. The translation of Poirot is in a very colloquial form of Manda­ rin,15 which he justified in two long prefaces to die manuscript.16 As his main advocate he chose St. Jerome (ca. 340-420), the translator of the Vulgate, the Latin standard version of the Catholic Church, which was made—as die name suggests—in colloquial (“vulgar”）Latin. Still, when the Vatican heard about the translation in 1803, Poirot was commended for his eagerness but forbidden to publish his work.17 A Catholic manuscript of a translation which later became essential for the history of Protestant Bible translation had already aroused the interest of the newly founded British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) in 1805. The first volume of its annual reports (1805, 18f.)，considered the possibil­ ity of printing a Chinese manuscript of parts of the New Testament of then unknown authorship found by William Moseley, a Congregational minis­ ter, in the British Museum in 1801.18 It was known that the Catholic missionary Jean Basset (ca. 1662-1707) of the Missions 色trangdres had translated the New Testament (or parts thereof),19 but only in 1945 could it be proven that the manuscript in the British Museum was (at least partly) identical with Basset’s translation.20 The proof was found in entries in the diary of Andreas Ly [Li Biaoshu21]

15 Studium Biblicum (1981, 123) even calls his style of language **northern slang”（ 北 方俾勘 . 16 Quoted in Xu 1949, 20-22. 17 See Kowalsky 1964, 261. 18 Moseley first approached the Church Missionary Society, which in 1801 gave con­ sideration to the manuscripts. It rejected Moseley’s offer to print it, because **a work of that magnitude and importance cannot hastily be executed; and they [tbe commit­ tee of the Church Missionary Society] deprecate the idea of holding out sanguine or arrogant expectations of speedy success in it” (quoted in Stock, 1899, vol. 1, 464). 丁he Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge was subsequently ap­ proached, but after four years of consideration it also refrained because of the cost of the project and tbe impossibility of distributing the books in China (see Broomhall 1927, 29). 19 Abel-R6musat mentions in 1811 (reprinted in Abel-R6musat 1825, 12f.) a New Testament manuscript in seven volumes by Basset in the library of the Propaganda at Rome (cf. Wylie 1897. 95; Bondfield 1915, 467; Hykes 1916, 1; Streit 1929, vol. V, 923; Kilgour 1939, 143). 20 See Willeke 1945. 21 Serruys (1976, 39) points out that Ly always referred to himself as “Andrew Ly, but that in all probability his Chinese name was Li Biaoshu.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

29

(1692-1774),22 a Chinese priest from Sichuan, who reported on the Bible translation activities of Basset: [Basset] also translated the New Testament from Latin into Chinese, from St. Matthew to the first chapter of the blessed Paul to the He­ brews; but, prevented by death, he was unable to finish the excellent work he had undertaken.23 The manuscript in the British Museum, which includes a harmony of the Gospels, the book of Acts, the Pauline letters, and the first chapter of He­ brews, thus corresponds to Ly’s description concerning Acts and the Epis­ tles. Regarding the authorship of the harmony, several possibilities have been suggested. Basset himself could have been the author, but it is known for sure that he (also?) translated separate Gospels, at least the Gospel of Matthew.24 Ly could have been the translator (or compiler) as possibly suggested in his diary,25 yet others give Basset’s assistant Jean Su as the possible author of the harmony.26 As Moule (1949, 30) pointed out, the use of the term shen 神 for “God” instead of the term tianzhu 天 主 一the officially mandated term since the publication of the papal decree of 1707—makes it highly likely 22

Published in 1924 by Launay. Author’s translation. “… Novum etiam Testamentumv a latino sinicum in idioma, a sancto Matthso usque ad primum caput Epistolae B. Pauli Apostoli ad Hebrsos in­ clusive transtulerat; sed morte prsventus, opus egregium a se susceptum, absolvere nequivit” （from a letter of Ly to the Sacred Congregation at Rome from 1760, quoted in Launay 1924, 512; cf. Willeke 1945, 451; Moule 1949, 27).

U In the same letter, Ly refers to a revision of Basset’s translation of tbe Gospel of Matthew by J. E. de Martillat (1706-1755), Bishop of Ecrinea: MIllustrissimus dein B.M.D. Ecrinensis, non solum Evangelium sancti Matthsi, jambridem a prsfato Domino B a s s e t elaboratum, adjectis iis, qus prim& in versione omissa fuerant, correxit... ” （Launay 1924, 512; cf. Willeke 1945, 452). 25

It gives as an entry for March 19, 1751: “Absolvi componere historiam insdtutionis sanctissimi sacramenti, passionis, essurectionis et ascensionis Domini nostri Jesu Chrisd, juxta traductionem novi testamenti a B.M.D. B a s s e t , et concordiam Evangeliorum, in lingu£ vulgari c^>tui mdiorum proportionatam ..." (Launay 1924, 168). Willeke (1945, 453) interpreted the harmony (“concordia Evangeliorum”）as being a production of Ly, whereas Moule (1949) saw it only as a reference to a harmony that he had at his disposal in addition to the history that he finished him­ self. At least Willeke, however, seems to overlook the fact that the manuscript which found its way into the British Museum had already been copied in 1739 and brought to London (see below).

26

See Spillett 1975, XI; Beckmann 1956, 434, fin. 167. Beckmann postulates Su as the source of the uncommon terminology in the translation.

30

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

that the harmony was not written later than 1707, thus excluding Ly as a translator.27 Whoever the author of the first part of the translation was, it was never printed. Instead, it was discovered in Canton in 1737 by John Hodgson of the East India Company, who had it copied and presented to n.28 Sloane in turn Hans Sloane (1660-1753) of the Royal Society in London.28 SI presented it to die British Museum, where it was stored in the library and apparently forgotten until rediscovered by Moseley.29 tlemen Moseley asked A. Montucci (1762-1829) and useveral gentlemei learned in the Chinese language"30 to examine the manuscript. They found that the translation, Mwhich in all probability, is the only one in the world,” was “well calculated to instruct the heathen in the religion of Christ."31 Moseley, who had called for the establishment of a society for Bible trans­ lations into oriental languages as early as 1798, believed that Mnothing therefore, remains for us to do, but to print, and circulate a sufficient num­ ber of copies.”32 Montucci—proposed by Moseley—was only too willing to undertake the editing and printing of it. However, Montucci's offer was not accepted by the BFBS because the manuscript was judged “firom the style

27 See clu^Her 4.1.3. on the “Term Question." Moule (ibid.) also remarked that it is likely that Basset used shen instead of the two other terms of debate (shangdi 上'吊：and tianzhu) to avoid becoming entangled in the conflict (cf. Spelman 1969, 50). 28 On a blank sheet at the beginning of the manuscript in the British Museum, the follow­ ing is hand-written: “This transcript was made at Canton in 1737 and 1738, by order of Mr Hodgson, jurf who says it has been collated with care, and found very correct. Given by him to Sir Hans Sloane, Ba^ [Baronet] in Sqjf 1739” (see copy in Moule 1949, plate II，feeing p. 24). 29 This manuscript is today known under **Sloane MS #3599." Other manuscripts of the Basset translation are found in the University of Hong Kong (Fung Ping Shan Library), the library of the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum in Hong Kong, as well as two different manuscripts in the library of the BFBS, and possibly the one re­ ferred to by Remusat in the Vatican (see fh. 19) (see Strandenaes 1983, 63). 30 Montucci 1801. 881. 31 Ibid., 881. 882. M Moseley 1801, 20.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

31

and wording, to have been made from die Vulgate,33 under the direction of the Jesuits." The high printing costs were also considered prohibitive.34 In addition, a new translation of the Bible into Chinese was already taking place in India, where “the Book of Genesis and the Gospel of Mark are in the course of translation, and some chapters of each [have] already been printed.”35 The translator of these portions—Lassar—“reads every thing in the language as readily as you do English, and writes it as rap­ idly."36

2.2. Translation of the Bible by Morrison and

e

In the meantime, Robert Morrison (1782-1834), a Presby , and Wil­ liam Brown37 were appointed as missionaries in 1804 by the London Mis­ sionary Society (LMS).38 It soon turned out, though, that cooperation be­ tween them was not possible due to Morrison’s strong character,39 and they separated. The Dutch J.T. van der Kemp (1747-1811), the first LMS mis­

33 Considering that the Vulgate was the official basis version for every Catholic trans­ lation until 1943, this must be considered as a fact for the ^ istles and the book of Acts. For the harmony translation, however, the question of a basis version has not been settled yet (see Strandenaes 1983, 65). 14 BFBS Report 1805, 19. The BFBS figured that the costs for "the printing of 1,000 copies would be little less than two thousand five hundred pounds, and for five thou­ sand copies would exceed six thousand pounds.” Strandenaes (1983, 64) suggests that the BFBS came to its decision much more easily because of Montucci’s great eagerness to undertake the printing, an eagerness which possibly was not only self­ lessly motivated. 35 BFBS Report 1806, 77. The report erred in regard to “Mark” which should have been “Matthew” (see 2.3.4.). 36 BFBS Report 1807, 154. 17 Brown left the service of the LMS, so no further information is to be found about him in the society's archives. M The LMS was founded in London in 1795 as an interdenominational missionary society. 39 In a letter to the LMS of Apr. 12, 1806, Brown stated that “almost from the day I came to London, I have had reasons to believe Mr. Morrison has never been satis­ fied with me as his companion. Whether his reasons be well or ill founded it will be obvious to you we cannot be fit aspirants in the same mission.” Morrison himself re­ ferred to the separation between Brown and him as “very, very painfiil,” and did not attempt to hide the shattered relationship between them: “Mr. Brown ... has insinu­ ated that he would rather work at some obscure corner at home, than accompany me to the heathen” (letter to the LMS of May 7, 1806).

32

P a rt 丨 * C h a p te r 2

sionary to South Africa,40 was also asked by the LMS to accompany Morri­ son as a more experienced man, but he declined, for he “could not feel the duty to leave Africa.”41 Morrison, with the help of above-mentioned Moseley, was introduced to a Chinese from Guangdong, Yong Sam-tak (Rong Sande 容三德 42)，who had just arrived in England to study English. He helped Morrison in mak­ ing copies of the Basset manuscript in the British Museum43 and of a LatinChinese dictionary lent to him by the Royal Society.44 Yong also acted as Morrison’s first Chinese teacher and became his roommate in this time of preparation.45 Yong is described as a man “with a most ungovernable tem­ per" and a “proud and passionate spirit.”46 He went back to China shortly after Morrison, where he no longer acted as his teacher47 but repeatedly helped Morrison in official affairs.48 In January 1807, Morrison finally sailed to China with the assignment from his mission society to translate the Bible into Chinese.49 The East 40 He was sent out in 1798 (see Home 1894, 59). 4'

See Medhurst 1838, 253; MacGillivray 丨 907, 2.

42 See Zhao 1993, 16. Another suggestion for the character of his surname is Yang f马 (see Zhongwen shengjing qidaoben 1989, 1882), which does not seem probable, judging from its pronunciation in Cantonese (joeq). 43 In a letter of Dec. 27, 1805, Morrison informed the LMS of the pending completion of the transcript of the harmony. Morrison himself had started to copy the transla­ tion (see Chinese Repository 1835, 252), and this becomes apparent in his manu­ script where he miswrote a number of characters and in several places inserted the English translation of Chinese phrases into the text. The manuscript is today in the possession of the University of Hong Kong (see fn. 29; cf. Ride 1957, 46). 44 See Box 丨 904, 85. 45 See Morrison 1839, 81. 46 John 1907, 66. 47 “Yong-Sam is polite and respectful, coming sometimes to have letters on business, which he attempts to write, corrected; but he does not show any disposition to com­ municate a single sentence of the Chinese. I do not formally ask him" (letter from Morrison to LMS of Nov. 4, 1807, quoted in Morrison 1839, 168). 48 “By this time I had met with Yong-Sam-Tak, who (I shall here express it once for all) has thus far behaved extremely well, and has served me to the utmost of his power" (letter from Morrison of Oct. 2, 1808, quoted in Morrison 1839, 237). 49 "Perhaps you may have the honour of forming a Chinese dictionary, or, perhaps the still greater honour of translating the Scriptures into a language spoken by a third of the human race" (letter from LMS to Morrison of Jan. 20, 1807, quoted in Dean 1859, 340).

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

33

India Co 叫 )any, which eventually employed him only two years later as their translator and paid for the printing of his voluminous dictionary in 1823, refused to give him passage to China. He thus had to travel via New York, delaying his arrival in China until September of 1807. 2.2.1. Style of Translation and Textual Basis After his arrival, Morrison settled in the French Factory in Canton,50 where he immediately took up his Bible translation work. His later colleague Milne51 wrote about the style of Chinese which Mor­ rison supposedly chose for the NT and his reasons for doing so :52 In translating the sacred Scriptures into Chinese, Dr. Morrison felt at loss for a time, as to the kind of style most proper to be adopted. In Chinese books, as in those of most other nations, there are three kinds of style, a high, a low, and a middle style. The style which prevails in the Woo King [Wujing] and Sze Shoo [Sishu],S3 is remarkably concise and considered highly classical. Most works of fiction of the lighter sort, are written in a style perfectly colloquial. The San Kwou [Sanguo],54 a work much admired in China, holds, in point of style, a middle place between these two. He at first inclined to the middle style; but after­ wards on seeing an imperial work, called Shing Yu [Shengyu]55 ... which is paraphrased in a perfectly colloquial style, he resolved to imi­ tate that work: 1, because it is more easily understood by the bulk of the 50

For the “factories,” which were tradehouses rather than manufactories, see Spence 1996, 5f. See ch. 2.2.3. In A Retrospect o f the First Ten Years o f the Protestant Mission to China (Melaka, 1820), here quoted firom Chinese Repository 1835, 2991T. See ch. 1, fh. 3.

S4 The historical novel Sanguozhi ycutyi 二闽志液

(History o f Three Kingdoms) by Luo Guanzhong 雜 贸 屮 （ ca. 1330-1400) is the earliest of the classical novels (see ch. 1, fa. 4) and has a stronger tendency towards classical Chinese than the other novels, partly due to its historical character which included the use of a number of historical texts (cf. Forrest 1965, 205f.). The Shengyu 聖g由，Sacred Edict, was a hortatory work in classical Chinese, pub­ lished by the Kangxi 康熙 emperor (r. 1662-1723) in 1670, and republished in an enlarged form by his successor Yongzheng 雍 正 (r. 1723-1736). The latter edition rendered into Mandarin (see ch. 1, fh. 5) by Wang Youpu 卫 又 校 （1681 - after 1760) stood for a long time as a model of written Mandarin. Bailer, one of the Man­ darin Union Version translators, even used the Shengyu as a supplemem (published 1892) to his influential Mandarin textbook, the Mandarin Primer (published 1887).

34

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

people; 2, because it is intelligible when read in an audience, which the high classical style is not at all: the middle style is also intelligible when read in public, but not so easily understood as the lower style; and 3, because it can be quoted verbatim when preaching, and understood by the people without any paraphrastic explanation. On reconsidering the subject, however, he decided on a middle style as in all respects best adapted for a book intended for general circulation. On the one hand it possesses some of the gravity and dignity of the an- ' cient classical books, without that extreme conciseness which renders them so hard to be understood. On the other hand, it is intelligible to all who can read to any tolerable extent, without sinking into colloquial coarseness. It is not above the illiterate nor below the better educated. The Chinese, whenever they speak seriously, affect to despise the collo­ quial works of fiction, while at the same time, they are obliged to ac­ knowledge that the style of the ancient classical books is not adapted for general usefulness. Of the style of the San Kwou, they speak in r 冲tures. . . . A style formed from a union of the commentaries on the classical books, with the San Kwou, is well suited to a version of the sacred Scriptures, and to theological writings in general. The subjects treated of in these commentaries are often of a grave cast; hence the style which a frequent and attentive perusal of them would form, is much adapted to the dignity of divine things; while at the model of the San Kwou, will produce a smooth and easy flow of expression. Though Milne started his description with the preamble that, “as in those of most other nations” there are three different styles of Chinese, he even­ tually listed a greater number of styles.56 This notion is remarkably similar to the idea which prevailed among Western missionaries throughout the history of Chinese Bible translation. Contrary to the quasi-official recogni­ tion of three different styles, the knowledge and use was of a greater vari­ ety. Milne listed the three official styles as that of the canonical books, which, as he continued to describe, “are not even supposed to be intelligi­ ble without a commentary" and therefore of no use in Bible translation and other theological writings; the style of the novels (“fiction of the lighter sort");37 and the colloquial style of the Shengyu. Though Milne called both the style of the novels and the Shengyu “perfectly colloquial, the differ­ 56 Early Catholic missionaries gave a similar, though not identical description of tbe different forms of Chinese classical styles. In his Notitice Lingua Sirucce, JosephHenri de Pi如)are (1666-1736) listed four distinct styles of classical Chinese. That this work was known, at least to later missionaries, is shown the English translation by J.G. Bridgman of 1847 ( 2 2 4 - 2 2 6 ) .. 57 See ch. 1, fh. 4.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

35

ence between the two was noted by Milne as a greater understandibility of the colloquial style by a greater number of people and when read aloud. The style of the Shengyu was Mandarin，whereas the language of the nov­ els still shows the elements of the classical Chinese style with its particles, pronouns, and mostly one-syllable terms. Other styles of language men­ tioned by Milne are the elevated style of the Sanguo and the language of the commentaries to the canonical books, which supposedly were to be the models for the style of Morrison’s Bible translation. The commentaries, as Milne continued in his article, were especially to be those of Zhu Xi 朱熹 (1130-1200), which were written in a readable form of classical Chinese.58 In Milne's—and allegedly Morrison's—understanding, the existing styles of Chinese included the highly classical style of the canonical books; three different moderately classical styles: the grave style of Zhu Xi’s commen­ taries, the elegant style of the Sanguo, and the badly reputed style of the other novels; and the colloquial but coarse Mandarin style of the Shengyu. This reflection on the different styles of Chinese is noteworthy for its quite accurate depiction of the understanding of styles of Chinese held by the Western missionaries for the remainer of the century, even though their conclusions on what style to adopt naturally differed. It is, however, not an accurate description of Morrison's considerations of style. For Morrison, the question of style was in reality not one that made him “[feel】at loss a for a time” or, as another author puts it, that “deeply exercised his mind."59 In fact, Morrison’s translation of the NT was for a great part a revision of the Basset manuscript,60 which Morrison himself acknowledged quite frankly. In a letter to the BFBS, he wrote that the Gospels, the closing Epistles, and the Book of Revelation, are en­ tirely my own translation. The middle part of the volume is founded on the work of some unknown individual, whose pious labours were depos­ ited in the British Museum. I took the liberty of altering and supplying what appeared to me to be requisite; and I feel great pleasure in record-

58 The writings of Zhu Xi were not only referred to by missionaries because of his commenlaries, but also for the Classified Conversations (Zhuzi yulei 朱子語類>, which were compiled by his disciples after his death. These were written in a collo­ quial form of Chinese (see Kallgren 1958). 59 Broomhall 1927, 66. In 1809 he was planning to print the harmony of the Basset manuscript (see letter to LMS of Apr. 1, 1809), but this eventually did not materialize.

36

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

ing the benefit which I first derived from the labors of my unknown predecessor.61 An analysis of Morrison's translation suggests that not only Acts and the Pauline Epistles are deeply indebted to the translation by Basset, but that also the Gospel harmony, which to a large extent was a fairly exact ren­ dering of parts of the Gospels in a new order, was used extensively by Morrison.62 The speed of the NT translation only emphasizes the depend­ ence on the manuscript by Basset: the first part of the NT—Acts—was published in 1810, followed by the Gospel of Luke in 1811, and Paul’s Epistles in 1812. In a letter of September 20, 1813, Morrison finally an­ nounced to his mission society that he had "finished the New Testament" and was whastening the printing of it.”63 Considering all this, any decision for a style other than that of the ver­ sion of Basset, which was in a low form of classical Chinese, would have meant a decision against the extensive use of this manuscript and a radical change in Morrison’s translation work, with a possible delay of the com­ pletion for several years. At any rate, under the pretext of using a umiddle style," Morrison al­ lowed himself to ignore the terse stylistic dictates of classical Chinese. Wherever Morrison did not follow the Basset manuscript he felt great lib­ erty in his style of translation, especially regarding a massive use of parti­ cles and pronouns and the somewhat arbitrary employment of different

Letter of Jan. 11, 1814, quoted in BFBS Report 1815, 27. In another letter he added: "Had it been my wish to make the whole translation appear as originally my own, I could have altered much more, with as little trouble as I took to decide on retaining what I did" (quoted in Broomhall 1927, 118). 62

This can be shown clearly in the first chapter of John. Basset had the following arrangement on the first few pages (italics highlight portions of John 1 included in harmony): Luke 1:1-4, John 1:1-13, Luke 1:5-56, Matt. l:18ab-25a, Luke 1:57-80, 2:1-21, Matt. 1:1-17, 2:1-12, Luke 2:22-39, Matt. 2:13ab-23, Luke 2:40-52. 3:1-6, Matt. 3:4-10, Luke 3:10-13, John l:19b-26a. Matt. 3:11-17, John 1:15-18, 30 (abridged), 31, 32-34 (abridged), 28, Luke 4:l-14a, John 1:35 (abridged), 36-48. 49 (abridged), 50-51 (cf. Strandenaes 1983, 67). Morrison followed Basset very closely on John 1:1-13, got off track because of Basset's omission of verse 14, and then translated verses 15-18 rather independently (see Zetzsche 1993, 106).

63

On Jan. 28, 1814, he sent a copy to the BFBS with the accompanying letter: “Allow me this day, as if present, from the Lands of China, in the midst of your animating Assembly, to lay before you a translation of the New Testament into Chinese mode and published in Canton."

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

37

styles of classical Chinese.64 Morrison strove for close literalness to the original, which he felt he was free to do with this style of language. The use of Basset was not Morrison’s only support from and contact with the Catholic Church. On June 8, 1816, he wrote to tiie BFBS tiiat an Italian clergyman of the Romish Church, and agent for the mission­ aries in Pekin[g], has liberally favoured me with a translation of the Gospels, with notes, in MS. by a missionary still living at Pekin[g]. His translation is in the colloquial style.65 Luo’s proposal (1988, 37) that this manuscript was part of Poirot’s transla­ tion66 seems highly probable, even though Poirot had died two years before that letter was written. Judging from the date of Morrison’s letter, though, he could hardly have used the manuscript in his own NT translation, which by that time was completed. Yet in Morrison's list of Chinese sources of support, **several Roman Catholic works” are mentioned.67 Morrison’s great reliance on Catholic sources, especially the Basset manuscript, had a lasting in ta c t on Protestant terminology, which to the present day is deeply indebted to Catholic terminology. This can be dem­ onstrated quite well by focusing only on examples of theological terms from the first chapter of John which Morrison took over from Catholic terminology and which are still in use today. They include terms like “life” as shengming 生 命 （verse 4), “faith” as xin 信 （verse 7), “prophet” as xianzhi 先 知 （verse 21), “baptism” as xi 洗 （verse 2 5 ) or “sin” as zui 罪 (verse 36), to only quote the most crucial ones. Even in the term which later launched an almost endless controversy, the “Term Question,” Morri­ son was indebted to Basset when he chose shen 神 for “God.” The only Chinese non-Catholic basis that Morrison had at his disposal was the translation by Marshman, sent to him by Marshman beginning in

64 Among the 40 pronouns that Morrison used in John 1:1-18, be employed jue 厥 as a possessive pronoun and qi ^ or yu ^ as a pronoun for the first person, as well as mo 我 （or the plural forms wobei 我辈 and wozhong 我衆）（see Zetzsche 1993, 56). The first examples belong to Early Archaic Chinese (see Dobson 1959, 27, 138; cf. ch. 1, fh. 3), the latter are used in later forms of classical or modern Chinese. 65 Quoted in BFBS Report 1817, 15. 86 See above. 67 Quoted in Broomhall 1927, 123. Among them a Catholic prayer book that furnished him “with words on the subject of religion" (Morrison 1839, 235). *

Cf. ch. 3.1.1.

38

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

1815,69 but Morrison did not seem to have used this much in his own translations. As his non-Chinese textual basis, Morrison followed the Textus Recep­ tus (in the case of the NT)70 and the English Authorized Version^ though he also consulted other versions. Morrison wrote: In the first part of my duty, viz., ascertaining the sense of Scripture, I have used the English public version [Authorized Version]; the Original Scriptures; Montanus's Version; the Vulgate; the French; the Septuagint translation; Thompson's translation of the Septuagint, etc. etc.72 About his translation of the minor Prophets, he wrote: “In these transla­ tions I have made considerable use of Bishop Newcomb’s [sic] version, as I did of Bishop Lowth’s in translating Isaiah."73 There was reasonable doubt expressed by other missionaries as to how much the Hebrew and Greek texts really were used by Morrison. G.T. Lay (d. 1845), the BFBS agent in China, said in a letter to the BFBS of October 10, 1836, that the translation “was made from the English version with a trifling assistance from original sources." Nevertheless, it is known that

w See publ. letter from Marshman to Baptist Missionary Society of April 3, 1817. 70 The Textus Receptus is the Greek text that formed the basis of the translation of the NT of the English Authorized Version (1611). 71 See Strandenaes 1987, 26fT.; Zetzsche 1993, 106. In a letter to the LMS of Nov. 25, 1819, Morrison himself stated: “I have made no departure, in any remarkable de­ gree, from the sense of the English version; which circumstance, I judge more satis­ factory to the friends of the Bible in England, than if I had affected to make a *new translation’ or an 'improved version’” (letter from Morrison of Nov. 25, 1819, quoted in Broomhall 1$27, 123f.). 72 Letter from Morrison of Nov. 25, 1819, quoted in Broomhall 1927, 123. “Montanus's Version” refers either to B. A. Montanus's polyglot edition of 1568-1572 or to his 1574 edition of the Vulgate; the French version mentioned by Morrison was apparently the Geneva Bible of 1588; what Thompson's translation of the Septuagint refers to is uncertain. 7, Letter to BFBS of March 19, 1819, quoted in BFBS Report 1820, 195. R. Lowth published a translation of Isaiah in 1778 (Albany: Webster), with the “then novel as­ sumption that Isaiah and the rest of the prophets spoke primarily to the people of their own time" (Neil 1963, 27If.). W. Newcome published an Authorized Version revision of the Minor Prophets in 1785. Considering the use of these versions, Strandenaes's assumption (1987, 34) that Morrison regarded the Authorized Version as “divinely inspired in a special sense" seems to go too far.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

39

M orrison did use Greek and Hebrew texts to some extent, as, for example, illustrated by his Hebrew OT with his own hand-written annotations.74 2.2.2. Chinese Assistants M orrison continued his language studies that he had started in England with Yong Sam-tak under the supervision o f some Chinese teachers. The names o f the teachers are never officially mentioned, but most names are known through M orrison’s correspondence and other sources.

I l l u s t r a t i o n 1:

M orrison with C hen Laoyi and Li Shigong (sitting), painted by G eorge Chinnery (1774-1852) in 1828 (in Broomhall 1927, frontispiece).

Li 李 ，a Cantonese who had spent 12 years in Portugal in a Jesuit college, and his son Li Shigong 李 十 公 ，became M orrison’s teachers in Canton-

74 See the reproduction o f the first page o f Genesis in Broomhall (1934, 54). where M orrison annotated 成 神 風 或 神 氣 一 “T he 'W ind o f G od’ or the *Breath o f G o d '" —searching for an adequate translation for the “Spirit o f G od" in Gen. 1:2.

40

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

ese.73 Yun Kwan-ming76 was his teacher of (spoken) Mandarin from 18061809. Yun was from Shanxi, but had lived with Catholic missionaries in Peking where he learned Latin but never any written Chinese.77 He was acting as the Catholic agent in Canton when George Staunton (1781-1859) introduced him to Morrison.78 From 1809 on, Low-Heen79 acted as Morrison’s writer and secretary, and another man with the surname Gao 高 taught Morrison the Chinese canonical books and Mandarin. In addition, Low-Heen was responsible for the printing of an edition of the book of Acts; and Gao, partly together with his son, was responsible for a last revi­ sion of Morrison’s manuscripts before printing.® The last of Morrison’s helpers or teachers known by name is Chen Laoyi 陳 老 宜 ，who appears together widi Li Shigong and Morrison on the above painting by Chinnery.81 The involvement of Chinese helpers in the translation process itself did not seem to be too extensive, as shown in a letter to Morrison from Milne, the later companion in the translation. On October 26, 1818, when most of the translation was finished, he wrote: The aid of some highly qualified native, rather attached to the Gospel, to give the final polish to the language, would be very necessary.—Thus I have given you my opinion freely because you asked it.82 (Small caps in original.) According to this statement, the help of native assistants was very little used—if at a ll-in the translation process. This is somewhat confirmed in a See Morrison 1839, 168; Chalmers 1876, 174. In the appendix of Zhongwen shengjing qidaoben (1989, 1882) the characters are given as 與 光 明 （Yuan Guangming), whereas Li (1989, 42) has the characters 股坤 明 (Yan Kunming). Morrison's transliterations are neither consistent nor is it known whether they refer to Cantonese or Mandarin as the basis of pronunciation, making it problematic to determine the original Chinese character. Chalmers (1876, 175), later himself a Bible translator, commented on this fact: “Such a teacher would not be prized very highly now-a-days, and yet he had the audacity to demand thirty dollars a month." 71

See Morrison 1839, 159ff.

79

Li (1989, 42) gives the characters 羅 嫌 (Luo Qian). Morrison described him as “mild, but insincere” (diary entry of Oct. 11, 1812, quoted in Morrison 1839, 343). See Morrison 1839, 238, 249, 274, 343, and 407; Chalmers 1876, 175. See Chalmers 1876, 174; McNeur 1934, 666f.

U Quoted in Morrison 1824, 231.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

41

list of Chinese sources in translation that Morrison gave elsewhere, where “tfie Native Teachers of the language” were only mentioned at the very end.83 2.2.3. Cooperation with Milne Shortly before the NT was published, an assistant for Morrison arrived. William Milne (1785-1822), also of the LMS, arrived in Macao in July of 1813, but was ordered by the Portuguese governor to leave within eight days. He left for Canton two weeks later, where he stayed for six months studying Chinese with a Chinese teacher. He continued his studies later witti Morrison’s help, and again for another six months after some journeys to Malacca (Melaka) and Java, yet in his diary of August 9, 1817, he stated that he had already “revised the New Testament to the 8th of Hebrews, and (downward) corrected all those parts marked by Mr. M o r r i s o n . I n the same year he had finished the translation of Joshua and Judges, and he planned to finish his part of the Old Testament by 1818, including the 12 books from Ruth to Psalms.85 Eventually his part did not include the book of Ruth or Psalms, and the ten books from 1 Samuel through Job86 were finished only in first draft on October 30, 1819, with die translation’s com­ pletion by November 25 of the same year.87 Still, it seems astonishing that Milne, the same man who made the ubi­ quitously quoted statement about the hardship of learning Chinese,88 should flnish this work in such a short period of time, not even taking into consid­ eration that he and Morrison exchanged all of their OT translation for mu­ tual revision and were both working on other major projects.89 This all Quoted in Broomhall 1927, 123. One Chinese author seems to try to make up for the lack of mentionable Chinese aids by praising the printer Cai Gao 祭高 and his brothers Cai Xing 祭興 and Cai San 铁二 for “giving (their) strength to the printing of the first Bible in ancient Chinese" (see Gu 1991, 435).

M Quoted in Morrison 1824, 42. SS

See ibid., 48, 50.

16 See Wylie 1867, 6. V See Morrison 1824, 72; Chinese Repository 1835, 260. "To acquire Chinese is a work for men with bodies of brass, lungs of steel, heads of oak, haiids of spring steel, hearts of iqxjstles, memories of angels, and lives of Me­ thuselah" (here quoted firom Broomhall 1907, 371). •9

Morrison published his dictionary ftom 1816-1823—a work that is much more praised for its accuracy than his Bible translation (see Legge 1888, 61 f.)—and worked as translator for the East India Company. Milne published a monthly maga-

42

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

goes to show that the first Chinese Bible translation on Chinese ground was a very hasty production, done by men who undoubtedly had a great capac­ ity to learn the language, but certainly not with enough competence to so quickly translate a Bible that could seriously satisfy the interest of Chinese readers.90 Grounded on his greater experience, Morrison continued to be the leading person of the two.91 It has been suggested that Milne chose the easier books of the OT to translate,92 but this seems to be a subjective evaluation that is difficult to confirm, especially since Milne in some of his books encountered difficulties that were **a great source of vexation” for him, particularly proper names and government phraseology.93 2.2.4. Publication of Translations and Revision The first book of the OT, Genesis, was published in 1814, only one year after the completion and publication of the NT; the next OT books were

zine (Indo-Chinese Gleaner), wrote several books, ran the mission press in Penang (today’s George Town), was the principal of the Anglo-Chinese college in Melaka and prepared many tracts, one of which became the famous Christian tract The Two Friends (Zhang Yuan liangyou xianglun 張貞兩友丨R論>.The Two Friends was writ­ ten in a simple form of classical Chinese (similar to what later was termed “Easy Wenli,” cf. ch. 8) and was printed in a number of “well over 1 million, perhaps 2 million" (Bays 1985, 23). 90 Lowrie, one of the Delegates ’ Version translators (see ch. 4), describes very realisti­ cally: “Dr. Morrison was a man of sound mind and patient industry, but no one con­ siders him a man of exalted genius. He could not run through a language, and thorougly apprehend its whole spirit, in the compass of a few years; still less can it be supposed, that he would speedily master the Chinese language ... when he was ut­ terly uiprovided with help for its acquisition” (Lowrie 1849, 238). 91 This can easily be seen from letters written by Milne to Morrison, as in one firom Sept. 2, 1819, where Milne talked about their future plans: “I do not wish to print any more of my translations till all of yours that are ready be finished, I become more and more diffident about them - I should be happy that you see and examine them all first. Pray what are we to do about meeting to revise the whole Scriptures, or what means are we to adopt for that work? Are you to come down next March, and stop till the Annual Meeting of the Union be over? or am - I to come to you next season? or how? You m u s t d e c id e - I shall do as you think upon the whole best" (quoted in Morrison 1824, 220, small caps in original). See Dean 1859, 334. See Morrison 1824, 220f.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

43

not published until 1819,94 after the Bible translation was completed.95 The task of flnal revision and printing occupied four more years, and the entire Bible was issued from the printing press in 1823 in 21 volumes with the title Shentian shengshu 神 天 聖 書 . It was presented by Morrison and his son John Robert (1814-1844) to the BFBS in London in 1824. Morrison himself was aware of the need for a revision or even a new translation of the Bible,96 and he had made some corrections to his version in later editions of 1827 and 1832.97 But none of these could be regarded as a revision, and the 1832 version was even criticized for having many typo­ graphical errors.98 Medhurst, Morrison’s successor as a Bible translator, stated that Morrison’s translation does not seem to have undergone any considerable correction or revi­ sion: and the impression of the Writer is, that the New Testament is substantially the same as it was in 1814, and the Old, as in 1820." This question of revision became quite crucial for the BFBS. In a letter to the American Bible Society (ABS) of 1843, the BFBS stated that one of the reasons for not supporting the new version in 1836 (see ch. 3) was that “the Doctor had himself partially revised the successive editions of his work.” 100 Even so, shortly before Morrison's death, the Bible society de­ cided “that should it appear desirable to engage, under his [Morrison’s] own superintendence, literary aid in the revision of his translation of the Chinese scriptures, this Society will cheerfully defray the expense of such aid."101 The son of William Milne, William Charles Milne (1815-1863)，who was in China with the LMS from 1839 to 1854, republished Morrison’s 94 Exodus, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Psalms and Isaiah (see Chinese Repository 1847, 372). Some of the Psalms were printed earlier. In a letter to the LMS of Dec. 17, 1814, Morrison also announced the printing of 100 copies of "Psalms & Hymns," and Medhurst stated (1838, 264) that the “the Psalms of David" were printed in 1815. 95

On Nov. 25, 1818, Morrison announced to both the LMS and the BFBS the comple­ tion of the translation (see Rubinstein 1996, 133).

96

See letter of his son J.R. Morrison to the BFBS of July 25, 1837.

97

See Darlow/Moule 1903, vol. II-1, 186. See Hills 1964, 17.

99

Medhurst 1836, 4.

100 Quoted in Hills 1964, 25. 101 BFBS Report 1835, LXVII.

44

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

first two published books, Luke and Acts, in 1845, bound in Western style. This edition contained only minor changes.102 The same accounts for the publication of die Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) from Morrison's trans­ lation in 1834 by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Mis­ sions. 2.2.5. Public Reception Starting in 1811，the BFBS supported Morrison’s work financially with a first donation of £500. Their decision was "particularly influenced by the high testimonials which they had received of Mr. Morrison’s character and proficiency in the language."103 The high estimation that the Bible society and especially British mission societies and individuals had of Morrison and his translation are demonstrated by the great honors which were be­ stowed on him during his two years in England from 1824 through 1826.104 The title of Doctor of Divinity had already been given to him by the Uni­ versity of Glasgow in 1817, and now he was received by King George IV and became a Fellow of the Royal Society. Li (1978, 4) ，however, writes pointedly that while Morrison’s Bible had a great reputation in England, it was not appreciated and honored in China. Morrison himself wrote about his work, after he had finished die trans­ lation of the NT: Allow me to notice, that I give this Translation to the world, not as a perfect Translation. That some sentences are obscure, that some might be better rendered, I suppose to be the matter of course in every Trans­ lation made by a foreigner; and in particular in a Translation of the Sa­ cred Scriptures, where paraphrase is not to be admitted. All who know me, will believe the honesty of my intentions, and I have done my best.105 102 The punctuation was somewhat revised by introducing the comma rather than using the Chinese full-stop for all punctuation marks, and some slight verbal changes were made. 103 BFBS Report 1812, 211. BFBS contributions through the next years finally nded to be much more critical of Morrison/Milne’s work. W.A. P. Martin, an American Presbyterian missionary and a Bible translator himself, wrote: “Morrison’s [version] is rude in style and untrue to the sacred text, the work of a worthy man, but little acquainted with the original tongues" (quoted in ABS Re­ cord 1863, 108). Such a statement could hardly be found from a British source. IM Quoted in BFBS Report 1815, 27.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

45

However, though he achieved much celebrity, Morrison was neither the first Protestant missionary to begin translating the Bible into Chinese, nor the first to publish it.

2.3. Translation of the Bible by Marshman and In 1799, the English Baptist Joshua Marshman (1768-1 , to Serampore, a little town on the outskirts of Calcutta under Danish sover­ eignty, where in 1800 he founded a church with William Carey (17611834) from the same mission.106 In the same year, the College of Fort William was founded in Calcutta. In 1804, a young Armenian, Joannes Lassar (b. 1781l07), bom and raised in Macao,108 was employed at the col­ lege as a professor of Chinese with the special duty of translating the Bible into Chinese. He was found and engaged by Claudius Buchanan (17661815)，the vice-provost of the college. In a letter to his mission society, the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS), of August 20, 1806, Marshman de­ scribed the encounter between Lassar and Buchanan. Lassar had come to Calcutta in his profession as a merchant with a large cargo of tea, but had encountered considerable difficulties when the prices for tea dramatically dro tiowever was the reason of introducing him to our friend [Bucha­ nan] a man capable of at once discerning and appreciating his talents and possessing enlargedness of mind sufficient to employ them. He by one act of generous interference freed Mr. Lassar from embarrassment, gained his entire confidence, and engaged him in the sacred work with which he is now going forwards, under our direction. Marshman’s “direction” did not begin immediately, for the first two publi­ cations of parts of the Chinese Bible—a few pages ftom Matthew and Genesis—were issued in 1804 as a translation done by Lassar himself.109

106 Together with a third missionary, William Ward (1769-1823), they formed the socalled "Serampore T rio , 107 Lassar seems to have died before 1835. The Chinese Repository of that year (p. 252) wrote: “We have somewhere, we think, seen a notice of the death of Mr. Lassar; but we :ollect, where it was, nor when it occurred." ,0* Here h Chinese from two Chinese servants, and later firom a Chinese teacher from Canton that his father hired for him (see Chinese Repository 1835, 252). Morrison described this teacher as “a talkative, but ignorant and dishonest man” (letter from Morrison to LMS, quoted in Morrison 1839, 168). 109 See BFBS Report 1807, 154; Hykes 1916, 2. In 1807 the complete book of Matthew was published and sent to the Archbishop of Canterbury (ibid.).

46

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 2

Because of Lassar’s lack of sufficient knowledge of other languages,110 these translations were made from the Armenian Bible.111 Sponsored by Buchanan, Lassar started to teach Chinese to Marshman in early 1806. Marshman was highly impressed with the abilities of his teacher and—so it seems—of his own ability to learn the language.112 Di­ rectly after the commencement of his Chinese studies, Marshman started to take part in the translation. 2.3.1. Translation Work In 1807 or 1808,113 Lassar moved to Serampore where the translation work took place as described in such detail in Marshman’s letter of December 1813 to the BFBS: The first step, as I have told you, taken in the translation, is that of Mr. Lassar* s sitting down at my elbow (where he sits from month to month and year to year,) and translating from the English, assisted by his knowledge of the Armenian. For a long time he and I read over the as­ signed portion together, prior to his beginning it, till he found it unnec­ essary; he now therefore only consults me respecting particular words

110 Marshman tended to be full of praise about Lassar’s linguistic abilities. In a letter to the BMS of Aug. 20, 1806, he credited him with speaking “4 other languages ... with great fluency, Armenian, Portuguese, Hindoostanee and English,” besides Chi­ nese. In other letters it becomes clear that at least his English was not quite so flu­ ent: "... we had to grope our way with an instructor [Lassar], who, born and brought up in China, understood scarcely more of English than we of Chinese" (let­ ter to BMS of Apr. 3, 1817). The Armenian Bible would have been the edition of 1666, which goes back to a translation of the 5th century from the Septuagint and a Syriac version. The first critical edition of the Armenian Bible was only published in 1805 (see Dar­ low/Moule 1903, vol. n-1, 86ff.). 112 “With respect to h is 【 Lassar’s】mental qualifications, 8 months intercourse with him as a teacher has enabled me to speak with a degree of precision; and here truth com­ pels me to say that every day’s intercourse with him confirms me in the opinion of his being able in point of capacity, and eminent as a Chinese Scholar. I cannot deny that before I had examined him, I was not without a degree of suspicion, relative to the extent of his knowledge; however, his unwearied attention, and his decision of character as a teacher, manifested towards his pupils by his insisting with the most steady vigour on the pronounciation being perfectly acquired, soon convinced me that he was above the common size of a tutor" (letter from Marshnum to BMS of Aug. 20, 1806). M, See Wylie 1897, 97.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

47

and phrases. In due time follows the correction verse by verse; when with Griesbach114 in my hand, I read over every verse in Chinese."5 Marshman continued with his description of the process that involved seven other proofreadings by different people, including Lassar, Marshman’s oldest son John Clark Marshman (1794-1877), at least two Chinese,116 and again and again Marshman himself. Marshman saw himself as the actual translator, and he is treated as such by most works about Chinese Bible translation. A complete evaluation of the role that Lassar played in the accomplishment of the work, however, shows clearly that he was the pri­ mary translator, perhaps with Marshman—as one author phrased it—as “the inspiring fa c to r," 7 2.3.2. Publications Marshman’s and Lassar’s first combined effort, a revised version of Mat­ thew, was published in 1810; the Gospel of Mark appeared in the same year, followed three years later by the Gospel and the Epistles of John. The Gospel and the Epistles of John was the first Protestant publication printed with moveable metal type, with the characters still looking rather crude. The New Testament was finally published in 1816 with the omission of Luke and Acts, which can only be understood as a response to Morrison’s publication of these same two books in 1810 and 1811.1,8 The completion of a first draft of the translation of the OT seems to have already been finished in 1816 or 1817,119 and the different parts ap­ peared between 1816 and 1822.120 In 1822, the first complete Chinese Bi114 Critical edition of the Greek text of J.J. Griesbach, published in 1796. 115

BFBS Report 1815, 164ff. wrote about his Chinese assistants in the letter of August 20, 1806: **I say besides him [Lassar] we are able to get an assistance firom China. Eight Chinese have been employed by Mr. Lassar the greater part of the year, of whom 6 are writ­ ers, and one of these a young man of about 30, who after the most assiduous labor for more than ten years to qualify himself for the Mandarineship, lost it in the ex-

1,7

, 18.

1,1 See p. 36. In a letter to his mission society of Jan. 9, 1817, Marshman strangely only acknowledged Luke as missing, with no mention of the omission of Acts. 119 In a letter in Jan. 9 1817, Marshman noted that completely finished."

the translation of which【 OT】is

120 1816: Genesis, 1817: Pentateuch, 1818: Job-Song of Solomon, 1819: Isaiah-Malachi, 1822: Joshua-Esther (see Darlow/Moule 1903, vol. IM , 184f.).

48

Part 1 • C h apter 2

ble was printed in Serampore in five volumes, and it was presented in May 1823 by Marshman’s son to the BFBS in London.121

聿 I

若翰所 ♦ 之！ 黃 I

第

@

然

u m l光 乘

原 舶 雜 貢 #同言• 首酣漭也 • 夫 筲 本 同 乘 « 勑由他所进非其逸 且命在其d 者人之光也， c 瓶& 其 • 其 者 弗 迎 無 而 |成焉•

于我們之中• 見其. 光I

之矣• 由潢鵁來 人 一名 • 因求爲証以証# 使生民藉他而_ 其本非沘光• 乃隹鴒光之鉦耳• 照 生I 光有卽* 光也其居世

• 言者化I

上. 世亦由他所§ 世不爾之其庳龙本物. 而芪肩迎之X 迪« 乃嚿他名者如摒之摁玖爲琳子• 非肉産• 非 血f 非人事樣镝

而

Ei

7 f

•&

I l l u s t r a t io n 2:

First Page of Marshman/Lassar's 1913 edition of printed with moveable metal type.

121 Marshman’s son later expressed some strong objections to the translation of his father: “The translation was necessarily imperfect; indeed, considering the great dis­ advantages under which it was executed, it could not have been otherwise, and it is now valuable chiefly as a memorial of his missionary zeal and his literary persever­ ance. ... At this distance of time, and on an impartial review of the circumstances and wants of the Serampore Mission, the appropriation of Mr. Marshman’s strength to a distant object of doubtful expediency cannot be regarded without some feelings of regret” (Marshman 1859, 244f.).

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

49

2.3.3. Catholic Assistance The translation work in Serampore underwent many changes in the years between the first publications and the completion of the NT. In 1809 and 1810, the translators had a nine-month visit from the Catholic priest Father Rodrigues. Rodrigues, a native of Brazil who had spent ten years in the mission in Peking, could not furnish Marshman and Lassar with an askedfor translation of the Gospels, which he had had to leave behind in Ma­ cao,122 but he gave his advice and help in questions of translation, and al­ lowed Marshman to copy a Latin-Chinese dictionary.123 2.3.4. Marshman and Morrison: Roots of the Conflict Between Baptists and Other Protestant Denominations in China Marshman and Lassar received copies of the Basset manuscript from Mor­ rison in 1810, and in the following years they also obtained copies of Morrison’s translation.124 As the extreme divergence between Marshman/ Lassar's 1813 edition of John and the translation by Basset and Morrison/ Milne clearly shows,123 Marshman and Lassar did not make any use of these translations until after 1813. However, Marshman/Lassar's 1822 122 In Marshman’s letter to BMS of March 30, 1810, be quoted from one of Rod­ rigues's letters: "Evangelicam traductionem Sinensem, quam exoptas, minime habeo, optime enim scis me repente et occulte e Macao d^essisse propter Sinensem persecutionem contra me excitalam ac proinde nihil fere mecum deferre potuisse.” m **Mr. Lassar bad advanced nearly two thirds through the New Testament, before I opened it [the dictionary]. This therefore gave a[n] opportunity of making a fair trial of the value and genuineness of what we had acquired in Chinese with so much la­ bour; as if next to a miracle, for the meaning of several thousand characters as given by men residing at Pekin[g], and another residing at Macao the latter of whom lived at least 60 years after tbe former, to harmonize exactly, unless that meaning was the true one: and I know not that I have even to this day discovered ten Characters, the meaning of which is given by Mr. Lassar and our other Chinese teachers that is positively contradicted by Pater Rodericus's [sic] Dictionary" (Letter from Marsh­ man to BMS of March 30, 1810). According to another letter of Apr. 3, 1817, Marshman did not have any dictionary for the first three and a half years. 124 Marshman was enraged about Morrison not having personally sent him any of his works; instead, they were “sent (to) me by various friends as Chinese books" (pub­ lished letter from Marshman to BMS of Dec. 13, 1816). 123 There are only a small handful of similarities between these versions, including the terms for ''God''—shen 神 一or “Word” (X6yoO— yon 言. Both Morrison and Marshman/Lassar have shengfeng .聖紙 for “Holy Spirit” as opposed to shengshen 聖神 in Basset.

50

Part 1 • C hapter 2

edition of the whole Bible is indeed similar to the versions by Basset and Morrison/Milne to a great extent. John 1:1 may serve as an illustration of this. The 1813 edition of Marshman/Lassar re a d s : 原 始 維 言 。神 同 言 。言 即 神 也 一“in the begin­ ning was the Word, God and the Word were identical, the Word was there­ fore God.” The 1822 edition was completely different: 原始已有言而其言 倍神 o 又其言爲神 “in the beginning (yuanshi) the Word already ex­ isted, and this Word was together with God, and this Word was God.” Morrison translated: 當 始 已 有 言 而 其 言 偕 神 。又 其 言 爲 神 一 “in the be­ ginning (dangshi) the Word already existed, and this Word was together with God, and this Word was God," only partially following Basset, who rendered very f r e e ly : 當 始 已 有 言 而 言 神 懷 美 且 言 爲 神 l26—“in the beginning the Word already existed, and the Word was in the bosom of God, and it even was God.” Besides the term yuanshi 原始 一“begin­ ning”一 that Marshman/Lassar used in both editions (for which Morrison following Basset chose dangshi 當始 ) ，Morrison's (and not Basset’s) text was adopted. On January 9, 1817, Marshman wrote to his society diat 一

the advantage we enjoyed from these [Basset's translations] was ttiat of being able to compare our translation therewith, rather [than] that of shortening our own labour; which however, was an advantage we highly prized, and of which we have fully availed ourselves. It is also proper to add that a copy of Brother Morrison's printed edition, was presented to us by a friend while we were printing the Epistles; and this also we thought it our duty to consult, as often as it appeared desirable; nor did we think it right to reject any amendment when it appeared to us to be really such. In a work so important as that translating the Sacred Scrip­ tures, all improvements must be despaired of, and every hope of secur­ ing a perfectly correct version of the Scriptures given up, if those en­ gaged therein, from a vain and silly idea of appearing original, refuse to consult the labours of each other. It is only requisite that such reference should be cheerfully acknowledged, to do which, is my occasion to troubling you with this minute detail of circumstances. And I would add that while printing the Hebrews and the following books, I had the satis­ faction of consulting Brother Morrison’s printed translation; nor did we think it right to sacrifice accuracy, to the idea of having the two transla­ tions widely different: to those skilled in Chinese they will be found in 126 This reading is according to the manuscript in Hong Kong University. The copy in the library of Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Hong Kong, omits the postposition li 褢.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

51

this part as widely different perh叩s as is consistent with a sincere con­ cern in both of us to exhibit the divine Word in its purity: but the im­ portance of relative uniformity relative to scripture names of men and places, induced us to adopt the same characters for them, with scarcely any variations. In printing the Gospels some years ago, and the books of the Pentateuch more recently, we could of course avail ourselves of no prior help. Marshman/Lassar's translation was thus to a definite extent based on Mor­ rison/Milne's and, where available, Basset’s translation. The reason for Marshman’s 44minute details of circumstances" is found in a major argument between Morrison and Marshman during these years. In 1814 and 1815, Morrison gave his grammar to the printing press of the Baptist mission in Serampore, where Marshman was just about to print his own grammar. Morrison eventually accused Marshman of plagiarizing his grammar,127 which the latter angrily denied, in turn accusing Morrison of plagiarism from the Basset manuscript. Marshman even counted tea the variations of characters between Basset and Morrison in Paul’s Epistles, and came up with numbers of between four and 16l/ i per page, “but there are some pages which have not more than two characters altered, some which only have one，and a few in which not even one is altered"128 (italics by Marshman). The conflict between Marshman and Morrison had actually begun much earlier; in fact, it started the moment Morrison sailed for China, which was understood by the missionaries in Serampore as an offense to their work.129 In his long and subsequently privately published letter of April 3, 1817, Marshman wrote that the LMS had asked for information about the trans­ lation of the Chinese Bible in Serampore because they were intending to send missionaries to help. But before the LMS had received their answer with the required information and the consent of the missionaries in w In a letter to the LMS of Oct. 11, 1815, Morrison writes: “They have kept it [Mor­ rison's grammar] in their hands and in the meantime DR Marshman has composed and finished a Grammar like mine with such alterations and emendations as man would make use of who wished to avoid the King's patent" (underlines by Morri­ son). Marshman’s grammar and translation of the Lunyu 論語 were in turn plagia­ rized by the first professor of sinology in Berlin, Wilhelm Schott (1803-1889) (see Schwarz 1990, 85f.; cf. cb. 6.1.1.). IU

Published letter firom Marshman to BMS of Dec. 13, 1816. According to Marshman’s son, the LMS even criticized the continued efforts of Marshman in Bible translation after they had announced their intention to sponsor Morrison's translation (see Marshman 1859, 396).

52

Part 1 • C h apter 2

Serampore to somebody assisting in the translation,130 they themselves were informed by Morrison that he had already landed in Macao. For them “it acquired little penetration to foresee what we had to expect.”131 In die same letter, Marshman continued to write that Lassar and he were seriously contemplating stopping the translation. They did not do so, because “not every missionary ... can make himself thoroughly acquainted with a lan­ guage.” Furthermore, “the uncertainty of human life appeared such ... as to render it quite unsafe to leave any in叩ortant work wholly dependent on the life of one person," and Marshman was “so far advanced" that he had already wtranslated the greater part of the New Testament." He was fully convinced that his decision to continue was right when he eventually saw the “want of grammatical accuracy" in Morrison's grammar. Morrison, in a letter to the LMS of December 14, 1809, answering a request of his society to correspond with the missionaries in Serampore about translation activities, wrote that this “is a very difficult thing for me to d o . He charged the missionaries in Seranqx>re with not having in­ formed him about their translation into Chinese, and he especially cast doubts on Lassar’s and Marshman’s competence in Chinese.132

"... that we would cheerlully receive any of their young men whenever they might wish to send them" (published letter from Marshman to BMS of April 3, 1817). But it is inaccurate to say that uMarshman began his work thinking that he and Morrison might co-operate and reduce the time necessary for the complete translation” (Wil­ liamson 1957, 9). Marshman’s statement to the BFBS, where he praised the situation of two independ­ ent translators so highly, can only be understood rightly in the context of the Bible society financing both his and Morrison's work: “And I cannot but view it as a part of divine wisdom, to put it into the hearts of two persons, labouring independently of each other, (Mr. Morrison and myself,) thus to care for the Translation of the Sa­ cred Scriptures into a language so peculiar in its nature, and understood by such multitudes of men. Should we have wisdom given us rightly to profit by each others' labours, I suppose that the translation of the Scriptures will be brought to as great perfection in twenty years, as they might have been in the hand of one alone in the space of fifty" (letter to BFBS of Dec. 1813, quoted in BFBS Report 1815, 167). 132 Lassar especially cast doubts on Lassar’s and Marshman's competence in Chinese

“does not know the Mandarin tongue nor yet the provincial dialect of the City of Canton," and Marshman's statement that Chinese is **scarcely more difficult of ac­ quisition than the Sungskrit, the Greek, or even the Latin language” (Marshman 1809, III), only proved in Morrison’s understanding Chat he had “either ... very su­ perior abilities, or which will not be so well, that he has but a partial view of the subject and his standard of perfection is low." Morrison allowed no doubt that he did not believe in the superior abilities of Marshman. He criticized Marshman's work by citing his mentor Staunton (see Rubinstein 1996, 84): "I have seen Mr.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

53

It would be tedious to describe the ongoing rivalry between Marshman and Morrison if it did not form the foundation for a pattern that had a sig­ nificant effect on the continuation of the history of Chinese Bible transla­ tion. In his letter of April 1817 to the BMS, Marshman gave the clue to the source of the conflict when he asked the LMS: Why so constantly follow up your Baptist brethren wherever they go, and then seek to “build on another man’s foundation," instead of imi­ tating their example, and exploring new regions, “till the name of Christ be at length known in every land?" Marshman continued with pages of examples where he believed the LMS, representing the non-Baptist Protestant mission, had merely followed Bap­ tist missionaries instead of founding its own mission stations in yet unex­ plored parts of the world.133 The rivalry between Baptist and non-Baptist groups in China eventually found in the course of Bible translation one its most obvious fields of con­ flict, its source embedded in the very first Protestant attempts at Bible translation. This conflict also became apparent in the difference of the re­ ception of Marshman/Lassar’s and Morrison/Milne's translations. Only Baptist groups preferred Marshman/Lassar’s version,134 whereas nearly all of the other critics of both works considered them to be similar, with Mor­ rison's a hint better.135 This included the BFBS who, while also supporting

Marshman’s Translation and Dissertation. Sir George Staunton thinks it by far a too hasty production" (letter to LMS of March 9, 1811). 113 On the competition of the Serampore mission especially with the LMS and the An­ glican Church, cf. Potts 1967, 52ff. 1)4 D.J. Macgowan (1815-1893), a missionary of the American Baptist Missionary Union, wrote in a letter to the BMS in England: MBaptists cannot be considered as intruders here, for although Morrison was tbe first Protestant missionary in China, your Marshman preceded him a long time in the labor; indeed the translation of the word of ‘God’ affected by Marshman is, in some respects, the best that has been made; at least his Genesis and Exodus is considered by scholars as far superior to any that has yet appeared" (quoted in Baptist Missionary Magazine 1844, 36). 1,5 “Where they differ, the advantage may be generally with Morrison, who as a resi­ dent of China, could command native scholarship of a high order, but this is by no means universally the rule” (Wherry 1890, 50; similar statements can be found in other works also). The only non-Baptist writer who seemed to have preferred Marshman to Morrison because of greater faithlulness to the original text 印pears to have been Martin (see fh. 104).

54

Part 1 • C hapter 2

Marshman/Lassar's work，136 always had a higher estimation of Morrison/ Milne’s accomplishments. So, for example, they never considered a revi­ sion of Marshman/Lassar’s translation, but of Morrison/Milne's—under Morrison’s own supervision.137 The reason behind the Baptist preference for Marshman/Lassar's ver­ sion was to be found not only in Marshman’s denominational ties, but also in his translation of the term **baptism." Morrison/Milne adopted Basset’s term xi 洗 一 “wash”一to denote “baptism,”138 whereas Marshman/Lassar followed the tradition of all Bible translations done at the Baptist mission of Serampore139 and employed zhan 藤 一“dip i n t o , 丨 40 According to Baptist doctrine, baptism could only be performed by immersion, which also was one of the original meanings of the Greek term paKtt^co. Baptists therefore demanded a translation in Chinese, as in other languages,141 with a term which would imply immersion, unlike xi which implies 44immersion" only in a very remote meaning. This term was found by Marshman in zhan 藤 and by later translators in jin 浸 —**immerse"—the term which today is still in common use in the Baptist Church (Chinese: jinlihui 浸 禮 會 l42).

The mission in Serampore was supported by the BFBS until 1927 with altogether more than £27,000 (see Fenn 1963, 393; Cryer 1978, 54f.). 137

See BFBS Report 1835, LXVn.

IM

Xi as a term for "baptism" had been the Catholic term in use frtHn early times, as in G. Aleni's Tianzhu jiangsheng chuxiang jingjie 天 I.:降’丨:.出像經解 of 1637. Even tbe Nestorian Cburch had employed xi as in the Xuting mishi suo jing 序應迷詩所 經：入多難屮洗 _ Miimnerse in the Jordan (duonan, see Haneda 1928, 452) to wash (xi).'' In the same Nestorian document, though, other terms are used as well, such as ru tang 入 湯 一“immerse in the water" (ibid., 434-439). The BFBS resumed its support of tbe Serampore mission because all Bibles trans­ lated at Serampore had a translation meaning Mbaptism by immersion" (see Cryer 1978, 55; cf. Potts 丨 967, 56f.). In their 1813 edition of John they had used several terms, all of which imply immer­ sion: in John 1:25 zfum 能 一“to dip into"; in John 1:26 cui ^ —“to dip into wa­ ter"; and in John 1:33 the newly combined zhancui _ 淳.

141 142

See ch. 5.2.3. The addition li 措 —“ceremony”—was added in the 1839 version by Medhurst/ Giitzlaff/Bridgman to distinguish between tbe common activity of washing (or im­ mersing) and baptism. Today it is usually used (in Catholic and Protestant transla­ tions) for the noun **baptism" (xi/jinli), whereas the verb “b^jtize” (xing 行，shou 授，iing 領，or shixi/jin 施洗/ 浸）is usually formed without the siqjplement of li.

T h e B e g in n in g s

of

P r o t e s t a n t B ib l e T r a n s l a t io n

55

The conflict over diese terms continued to be one of the most crucial questions in the history of Chinese Bible translation. Not until the transla­ tion of the Union Version was an attempt launched to find a common Chi­ nese term for PaTtxl^co. The Chinese agent of the ABS, John Hykes (18521921), asked the American missionaries in China at the beginning of 1905 for their opinion on the Chinese translation of paTcxi^co.143 The answers of representatives of the important American mission societies in China clearly showed the true motives behind the discussion.144 A transliteration as done in the English (“baptism”） or the (Protestant) Japanese Bible (baputesuma / —**tabemacle," did not appear again in Chinese Bible translations for more than fifty years.65 The attempt to attain a higher classical Chinese style as well as a more faithful translation can be pointed out in John 1:3 (44All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being"). The 1839 and 1840 editions read : 萬物以道而造 * 又凡被造 者 ，無 不 以 道 而 造 作 矣 一“The myriad creatures were created by the Lo~ gos, and of all which was created there was nothing diat was not created (and done) by the Logos!" The later three editions r e a d : 萬 物 以 之 成 焉 ， 而所成者， 並 不 以 之 而 成 焉 一 “The myriad creatures were com­ pleted by it, and of which was completed there was not even one that was not con^)leted by it!" In his later revision, Giitzlaff translated pronouns as such, used the more classical passive voice marker suo 所 instead of bei 被 ，and did not employ two-syllable words like zaozuo 造 作 • Medhurst did not maintain a high appreciation of the works of his for­ mer colleague in Bible translation. In 1849, he wrote about GiitzlafTs NT revisions and OT translation: It is still, in the opinion of good Chinese scholars very defective, and will continue to be so, as long as he neglects to consult and avail himself of the assistance of learned natives, and does not aim to make his phrases and expressions, in the Chinese sense of the word, correct and classical. Native scholars very much disapprove of his collocation of words and use of terms. The edition of the O.T. which Mr. Gutzlaff employs is one prepared by himself, and provides these general defects which are ascribable to his revision of the New. I have frequently detected many inaccuracies in reading it over, and would by no means recommend its being taken on by the Bible Society, before it is carefully revised by some other Mis­ sionary.66

64 See fh. 29. 45 See tbe translation by Chalmers/Schaub, p. 151. 46 Letter from Medhurst to LMS of June 30, 1849.

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 3

71

Medhurst always stressed the in^ortance of Chinese participation in trans­ lation work, which explains why he repeatedly charged Giitzlaff with not allowing any native assistance in his work.67 The very last remark that Medhurst made in the above-quoted letter reveals his true purposes, though. Gutzlaff had continued to offer his translation to the BFBS,68 and in 1849 and 1850, while Gutzlaff travelled through England and other European countries to propagate his mission activities, the BFBS did actu­ ally decide to siq)port his translation again. It granted £450 for the distri­ bution of his NT because the testimony they have received from various quarters—the opinion of learned men, both in this country and on the continent of Europe, have left on their minds the impression, that this version of Dr. Gutzlaff, es­ pecially after all the revisions and alterations it has undergone, is not ng of that measure of support.69 At time, Medhurst was engaged in a new Bible translation proj­ ect, the Delegates’ Version, which was supposed to be supported by the American and the British and Foreign Bible Societies. The BFBS’s new support of Gutzlaffs translations must therefore have appeared threatening to Medhurst’s new project. But GiitzlafTs “Triumphfahrt”70 through Europe seemed to have impressed the directors of the BFBS to such a high degree that they supported him, even though “they acknowledge[d】the general undesirableness of circulating two or more versions of the same language in the same country.”71

67 In another letter to the LMS (of Oct. 8, 1849), Medhurst wrote yet again that Giitzlaff "does not seem to have committed his composition to competent native Judges, or not to have availed himself of their remarks, for when the work is shown to learned Chinese with whom we come in contact, they invariably testify their ap­ probation of it on account of its idiomatic character. In addition to this it bears evi­ dent marks of carelessness and want of judgment, which might have been remedied had several persons been associated in its preparation.” *

GfltzlafT offered to print 30,000 copies of his OT for the same price that would be needed to make a new OT translation (see letter from Medhurst to LMS of May 11, 1850).

69 BFBS Report 1850, CVIII. 70 Schlyter 1946, 226. 71 BFBS Report 1850, CVIII.

72

T h e S e c o n d G e n e r a t io n

of

B ib l e T r a n s l a t o r s

3.3. The Translation and the Taiping Rebellion This translation by Gutzlaff (and in its early editions by Medhurst and Bridgman) became possibly the most influential Bible translation in Chi­ nese history, not because of its high value for the Chinese church, but be­ cause this was the version that was employed by the Taiping rebels. The founder of the Taiping rebellion, Hong Xiuquan 洪 秀 全 （18131864), was given the tract Good Words to Admonish the Age71 ( 勸 世 良 言 ; published 1832) when he went to Canton in 1836. This tract, consisting of nine volumes, was written by Liang Fa 梁 發 （1789-1855)，one of the first Chinese converts. Liang made great use of Morrison/Milne’s Bible transla­ tion in his tract, quoting it at length. Hong possibly only glanced at these tracts in 1836 and afterwards did not read them for some years. Not until the early 1840s, when he finally studied the tracts, did he interpret a nerv­ ous breakdown he had had in 1837 as his “call” to be the “Messiah”. In 1847, Hong went to Hong Kong to study under the American Baptist I.J. Roberts (1802-1871), who himself had studied under Giitzlaff and was a member of GQtzlafTs Chinese Union. Hong only stayed for two months, but during this time most certainly was given a Bible by Roberts. This was of course the Medhurst/Giitzlaff/Bridgman version, as shown in a compari­ son of the first edition of the Taiping Bible with that version, a comparison which proves them to be identical in great parts.73 The first Taiping edition was a publication of Genesis 1-28 published in 1853, the same year as the complete Hexateuch and the New Testament. Shortly after the establish­ ment of the Taiping capital in Nanjing in 1853, these editions were consid­ erably changed and also furnished with explanations. The influence of biblical terminology on the ideology of the Taiping can be shown in some places quite clearly, such as in the name for “God” or in the Taiping’s concept of baptism, both topics of great relevance to Bible translators in China. The above-mentioned “vision” that Hong experienced is likely to have had a direct correlation with the name of “God” in Liang’s tract.74 Shen yehuohua 神 爺 火 華 [directly translated: “God (or: spirit); old 72 Original English title. 71 Medhurst wrote in a letter to LMS of Dec. 29, 1853, about the Taiping rebels: "In the Old Testament they have followed Gutzlaff s version, without the alteration of a single character ... . In the New Testament they have followed the version prepared by myself and Gutzlaff in 1835 ... . It is one of tbe earliest of these editions [GQtzlafTs NT revisions] that the insurgents have followed word for word as they found it.” 74 See Foster 1951, 164.

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 3

73

man (or: father); fire; bright (or: China)"] was the term that Liang used in his tract for “God Jehovah," but this was not indicated as a (in its second part) transliteration of a proper name. In his vision, Hong saw “a man ven­ erable in years (corresponding with ye), with golden (corresponding with huo and hud) beard and dressed in a black robe,"75 an image likely to have been inspired by a direct translation from Liang’s name for “God,” espe­ cially as it appeared at the beginning of the tract.76 That this term was consklered to be a term of some relevance to the Taiping ideology is demon­ strated by tbe fact that both Yehuohua 爺火華 as the personal name of God and ye 爺 as “God the Father” later appeared in Taiping writings.77 As to the translation of “baptism,” a multitude of terms were used in die early Protestant Bible translations which are likely to have had some influence on the Taiping rebels* understanding of baptism. Morrison/Milne had used xi 洗 一“wash,” the 1839 edition of Medhurst/Giitzlaif/Bridgman’s translation xili 洗 禮 一“rite of washing，” the 1840 and 1854 edi­ tions jinli 浸禮 一“rite of immersion,” and the 1847 edition jinxi 浸 洗 一 Mimmerse and w a s h ,78 A Taiping explanation of baptism stated: you either take water ftom a basin and wash your whole body clean or wash yourself by immersing in a river, which is better..”79 The two concepts of either immersing or washing that are shown here seem to be based on the different terms for “baptism” en^)loyed in some of the above-named trans­ lations.80

73 Quoted ibid. 76 ’ i

vords of the tract a r e : 夫神爺火華所造田里jf•各献（“So ‘God Jehovah’ beasts in the wilderness").

. for example, is used in the Book o f Heavenly Articles 天條害 (published 1852) in an explanation to the third commandment (quoted in Deng/Xie 1976, 78), and ye in the Taiping commentaries on the New and Old Testament (quoted in Jin/Tian 1976, 75ff.; cf. Boardman 1952. 70.). 78 For the 1847 edition, see Boardman 1852, 100. In view of the conflict the BFBS had with the Serampore mission on the use of a term for **immersion" (see ch. 2, fh. 139), it is noteworthy that GQtzlaff only employed jin in later editions. This term, not accepted by tbe BFBS, was only used as the translation for Pantt^a) after the id decided not to siq>port ther version.

77

shu 天 條 咨 (published 1852), in the chq>ter for the rules of repentance (悔罪規矩〉(quoted in Deng/Xie 1976, 74). 80 It is also possible that Hong's idea of baptism is a mixture of tbe concept of sprin­ kling (sa 湖）derived from Liang’s tract (see Liang 1832, 85) and the teaching of the Baptist Roberts.

79

74

T h e S e c o n d G e n e r a t io n

of

B ib l e T r a n s l a t o r s

It is difficult to evaluate the actual relevance of the influence that Bible translations had on the ideology of the Taiping. The indisputable fact that there was some influence, however, invested a new significance into Bible translation in China by highlighting the responsibility of translators to cre­ ate a version that would minimize the chances of another fatal heresy like that of the Taiping rebellion.

3.4. Summary The dominant position of Morrison, the founder of the Protestant mission to China, continued to be relevant even after his death. Though Morrison himself had realized that a new translation or a thorough revision of his version was needed, such a change was seen almost as a sacrilege by the BFBS, thus motivating it to decide not to support Medhurst’s new transla­ tion. The second reason for its rejection was the employment of what could be called a modem principle of translation. According to this principle, a translated text should not only be determined by strict fidelity to the basis text but to a great degree by the language to be translated into, the source language, and the cultural situation of the reader. It is not surprising that the Bible societies would not accept such a concept of translation during a time where there was only one authorized English version and a strong belief in a literally unchangeable word of God in the Bible. The once again rather hasty translation, emphasized by the great number of revisions, only encouraged this sentiment. The crucial position of the Bible societies to the lasting success of a Bi­ ble translation was now in the process of being established. This position of authority was somewhat ridiculed by the unceasing and sometimes success­ ful attempts of Gutzlaff to gain support from the BFBS, but it was taken for granted that from then on mainstream Protestant Chinese Bible translations would need the authorization and support of at least one of the Bible socie­ ties. The concept of broad translation committees was aimed at for the first time, at least on the outside; in reality it was a translation of two men, Medhurst and Gutzlaff, who did not even cooperate well. It was clear, though, that a successful new translation would have to be the product of a committee that ideally would not only be dominated by one or two men. Conflicts between the American side—represented by Bridgman—and the British side—represented by Medhurst—also began to emerge for the first time.

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 3

75

A new significance to Bible translation was added by the fact that the Taiping rebels had adopted the new version and other writings, possibly confusing some concepts partly because of a choice of terminology that could be easily misinterpreted.

4. FIRST ATTEMPT AT A UNION VERSION: LONG-LASTING DIVISIONS IN THE PROTESTANT MISSION

4.1. Delegates* Version New Testament Translation The Protestant mission in China experienced a sudden change in prospects through the Treaty of Nanking and the British annexation of Hong Kong in 1842. Whereas up to that time missionary activities had been confined to Macao, Chinese settlements outside of China, and very restrictedly to Canton, now the five ports of Shanghai, Xiamen (Amoy), Fuzhou, Canton, and Ningbo were open to foreigners. Between the years 1842 and 1857, the numbers of missionaries in China quadrupled.1 The need for a transla­ tion of the Bible that would be accepted by not only all the mission socie­ ties but also the Chinese became more and more evident. Thus Bible translation became the only field of cooperation in Protestant missions during that time.2 4.1.1. Formation of Committee and Princi|rfes of Translation From August 22 through September 4, 1843,3 a conference took place in Hong Kong aimed at a commonly translated Chinese Bible. The mission­ aries who joined these meetings were members of several mission societies: W.H. Medhurst (1796-1857) Samuel Dyer (1804-1843) Benjamin Hobson (1816-1873) James Legge (1815-1897) W.C. Milne (1815-1863)

LMS (chairman) LMS (secretary) LMS LMS LMS

1 By 1842, 56 missionaries had come to China; at the end of 1857, 159 more had ar­ rived in China (see appendix in Chinese Recorder 1884). 2 3

Cf. Latourette 1929, 261. The dates of the successive meetings were: August 23, 24, 25, 28, and September 1 and 4.

78

Part 1

Alexander Stronach (1800-1879) John Stronach (1810-1888) E.C. Bridgman (1801-1861) Dyer Ball (1796-1873) Samuel R. Brown (1810-1880) William Dean (1807-1895)

I.J. Roberts (1802-1871) D.J. MacGowan (1815-1893) John Lewis Shuck (1812-1863) Walter M. Lowrie (1819-1847)

C hapter 4

LMS LMS ABCFM ABCFM Morrison Education Society4 General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denominations in the United States (GMC)5 GMC GMC GMC6 American Presbyterian Mission (APM)7

During the meetings it was decided8 that the New Testament ought to be revised,9 and the Old to be newly translated. The NT was to have the Tex­ tus Receptus as the Greek basis text.10 Further decisions included:

The Morrison Education Society was founded in 1838. It was an educational project with the object of teaching English in China and, through that medium, introducing the Bible and Christian books. The American Brown was responsible for the school from 1839 to 1847, when he returned to America. In 1859, Brown went to Japan with the Reformed Church Mission, and in 1872 he became a member of a translation committee that translated the first Japanese Bible (NT completed 1880, pub­ lished 1884) (see Chinese Recorder 1880, 31 Iff; 1881, 64 fT.). The GMC was renamed American Baptist Missionary Union (ABMU) in May 1846 after its split with tbe Southern Baptists. Shuck had come to China as a missionary of the GMC but turned in 1846 to tbe service of the Southern Baptist Mission. Lowrie attended the meetings only from August 28 on, MacGowan and Shuck from August 23. For the detailed minutes see Chinese Repository 1843, 551ff.; BFBS Report 1844, ClXff. That the NT was only said to be revised was surely merely an act of courtesy to Medhurst and Bridgman as members of the former translation committee. The min­ utes say: “In regard to the New Testament, while the meeting readily acknowledge the siq>eriority of the latest【the version by Medhurst, Gutzlaff and Bridgman] over every former version, they would recommend that all that has yet been done be submitted to a committee for the purpose of being thoroughly revised" (quoted in Chinese Repository 1843, 551). 10

The choice for the Textus Receptus was “in deference to the wishes of the British and Foreign Bible Society," even though the translators "would have preferred to follow the Text as edited by Dr. Bloomfield, and thus secure the advantages which

F i r s t A t t e m p t a t a Un i o n Ve r s i o n

79

That any translation of the Sacred Scriptures into Chinese, issued with the approbation of the body of Protestant missionaries be in exact con­ formity to the Hebrew and Greek originals in sense; and so far as the idiom of the Chinese language will allow, in style and manner also. ... That the amounts of weights, measures, and pieces of money, being as­ certained, the same be translated by corresponding terms in Chinese. That terms of Natural History be translated by corresponding terms in Chinese, as far as they can be ascertained. ... That passages occurring in different places, but expressed in the same way in the original, be translated in a uniform manner. ... That no periphrasis be substituted for the possessive pronoun when used in connexion with the name of God. That the interchange of noun and pronoun be allowed when deemed nec­ essary by the translators. That euphemisms in the original be rendered by corresponding euphe­ misms in Chinese." Committees were formed for the translation of “baptism”12 and “G o d ,13 but these could not come to any conclusion during the time of the confer­ ence. It was therefore decided that for the rendering of “baptism” each mission could decide which term it would use, and that the final decision for the translation of “God” would be with the general committee. Trans­ literations of proper names were to be drawn up by another committee formed of Medhurst and Milne with the assistance of J.R. Morrison.14 The general committee was supposed to meet again for the final touches on the NT. Beforehand, the NT was divided into five parts which were each to be translated by one of five mission stations (Shanghai/Ningbo, Xiamen, Fuzhou, Bangkok, Canton/Hong Kong),15 then forwarded for cor-

the researches of more than two centuries now give the Biblical student" (Bridgman 1964, 36) actually quotes a letter of Bridgin Chinese Repository 1849, 390). Hills (1964, to the ABS of March 2, 1848, where he states that “the Committee were ag re^ on the of Bloomfield's edition of the Greek text, and their reference works ineluded Jowett’s edition of the Textus Receptus.” S.T. Bloomfield published an edi­ tion of the Greek Testament in 1832 (Cambridge: Rivington, 2nd ed.: 1836, Lon­ don: Longman)，J. Jowett’s edition was published in 1843 by the BFBS. Quoted in Chinese Repository 1S43, 55If. Committee consisting of Bridgman and Dean. Committee consisting of Medhurst and Legge. Morrison died on August 29, four days after this was decided. Matthew and Philippians to Philemon were apportioned to Shanghai/Ningbo; Mark and 1 and 2 Corinduans to Xiamen; Luke, Romans, Galatians and Ephesians to Fu-

80

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 4

rection to the other stations. The drafts would then eventually be sent back to the original station, to be dien forwarded to die general committee. The general committee was to consist of the most experienced men sent by each station; each station, regardless of the number of men it sent, had only one vote on each decision in the final revision. The BFBS and ABS were re­ quested to reimburse the missionaries for their expenditure, and no part of the new translation was to be printed until finally revised by the general committee and approved by the Bible societies. Medhurst was elected to be the secretary of the general committee. Af­ ter one year and a half, in the beginning of 1846, he sent out a circular to all the mission stations, calling for a meeting of the general committee in Shanghai in September of 1846.16 After strong objection from Bridgman and the other missionaries in Canton,17 who were not finished translating the part assigned to them,18 it was decided to delay the first meeting until June 1，1847. In the four years between the conference and the meetings in Shanghai, there had been several changes to the original plan and stations. The sec­ retary of the conference, Samuel Dyer, one of the veterans of the mission to China, had died only a month after the meetings in 1843. He had ad­ vised the BFBS not to accept the 1836 version,19 but it was also he who, on a visit to England in 1839, so strongly urged the Bible Society and other mission societies to support a new translation that he **induced a feeling in favour of the long cherished scheme.”20 The translation work that was sup­ posed to have taken place in Fuzhou under his responsibility had had to be transferred additionally to the committee in Shanghai.21

zhou; the Gospel and the Epistles of John and Revelation to Bangkok; and Acts and Hebrews to 2 Peter to Canton/Hong Kong (see Chinese Repository 1849, 389). 16 See Chinese Repository 1846, 109. The early date for a meeting was scheduled by Medhurst because the BFBS and the LMS were urgently pressing for a completion of the work (see Hills 1964, 34). 17 See Chinese Repository 1849, 388. 18 Legge reported in a letter to the BFBS of Jan. 12, 1847, that in tbe summer of 1846 the missionaries in Canton/Hong Kong had not yet translated the books of Hebrews and James, both of which were part of their share (quoted in BFBS Report 1847, CIX). 19 Seech. 3.1.1. 20 Wylie 1897, 103. 21 See BFBS Report 1847, CVIII.

F i r s t A t t e m p t a t a U n i o n Ve r s i o n

81

Also, all of the Baptist missionaries with the exception of Shuck had re­ signed ftom the translation work and taken up another separate transla­ tion.22 4.1.2. First Meetings of Committee When the general committee finally came together in Medhurst’s house on June 28, 1847,23 rules of order were adopted,24 and on July 2 the actual translation work started. It was found then “that much less had been ac­ complished than was anticipated.”23 The reasons for that can partially be explained in the above-mentioned changes in the committee, but also be­ cause most of the missionaries were occupied with things other than only Bible translation: Now that the country was in some degree open, those who had sent mis­ sions to China were anxious, as the missionaries themselves were also, that every possible effort should be made to preach the word. To do this was their first duty. The work of revision was conceived to be an object of secondary consideration.26 (Italics in original.) Therefore the work commenced in Shanghai was not so much that of a fi­ nal polishing of the already prepared translations, but rather of a thor­ oughly new translation itself. The Western members of the committee were Medhurst, Lowrie, and William Jones Boone (d. 1891) (American Episcopal Church Mission) for the Shanghai/Ningbo station, J. Stronach for Xiamen, and Bridgman for Canton/Hong Kong. Lowrie was killed in August, and his place was taken by Milne, so that the LMS missionaries (Medhurst, Stronach and Milne) held the majority.27 Boone only attended the first three meetings for the

22 See ch. 5.1. 23 The committee met at Medhurst’s house throughout all the translation work. 24

See Chinese Repository 1849, 389f. Here all the rules are quoted in fiill.

IS

Ibid., 390. Lowrie had come to the meeting in the hope that it would not take more than six weeks, a hope which was frustrated even before the commencement of the meeting (see Lowrie 1849, 439f.).

U See Chinese Repository 1849, 388. 27

Milne was actually later voted out of the committee by the local committee in Shanghai, but through bis official transfer to Xiamen and his election as a committee member there, he once again could enter the general committee and have the LMS missionaries retain their majority (see letter from Medhurst to LMS of May 11, 1850). Williams (1907, 364; cf. Loh 1995, 57) writes that Culbertson (see p. 98)

P art 1 • C h a pter 4

82

translation work, and later for some part of the Sermon on the Mount until he could not take an active part anymore because of health problems.2* Still, he never resigned from the committee to avoid losing his vote, which he made use of whenever it was called for.29 The committee meetings were declared open to all Protestant mission­ aries who, if “present at the meeting of the Committee shall have the privilege of expressing opinion on any point under discussion."30 4.1.3. The Term Question At the third actual translation session, on July 5, 1847, the committee came to the translation of Matt. 1:23 where “God” had to be rendered into Chi­ nese. Though Medhurst, Gutzlaff, and Bridgman in their earlier translation had decided on shangdi 上帝 instead of shen 神 of the translations by Mor­ rison/Milne and Marshman/Lassar,31 Bridgman now once again proposed shen to be employed for “God,” resulting in a discussion of several days. Finally it was decided that the argument should be continued in writing, which continued for the next six montitis. The written material put together by the two parties amounted to “about 600 closely written pages."32 In the next five decades these arguments were published and republished,33 leadbecame Lowrie’s successor, which is unlikely based on the fact tbat Culbertson did not move to Shanghai before 1830 (see Wylie 1867, 147). u

“I would have been glad to attend the meetings of the Committee, had my health and strength permitted the amount of labor that would have rendered my attendance of any value even in my own eyes" (Boone 1852, 1).

29 See letter of Medhurst/Stronach/Milne to LMS of March 13, 18S1. 30 Quoted in Chinese Repository 1849, 390. J, The opinions of Morrison and Milne were of eminent importance during the follow­ ing discussions, with both sides claiming their views for their respective argumenta­ tions (see Chinese Repository 1847, 102; 1850, 341). This only e叫}hasizes their, and especially Morrison's, great authority in every field of Bible translation during the first half of the last century. 12 Letter of Medhurst and J. Stronach to the members of the local committee of the LMS in Shanghai of Dec. 11, 1847. 33 The spokesmen of the two factions of the argument during the translation of the Delegates' Version, Boone (shen) and Medhurst (shangdi), published their respective views in the Chinese Repository of 1848 and 1850. The discussion went on for years after that, so that the Chinese Recorder, the main forum for missionary writings from 1867 on, even enclosed an insert in the July/August issue of 1877, stating: “In justice to our contributors and in answer to the many letters from subscribers, we now announce that Articles on the Term Question which have been handed in to the Recorder, will have a place during our next two issues. But at the end of this year

F i r s t A t t e m p t a t a Un i o n Ve r s i o n

83

ing to the greatest controversy of the Protestant mission in China, the “Term Question."34 A detailed account of this episode requires a different research paper. Yet, in order to understand the further course of Bible translation history in China, it is necessary to at least give a historical outline of the conflict. Additionally, the question of shen or shangdi as the equivalent Chinese translation for “God” is of current interest because both terms are still in use, even though it is no longer a point of conflict. The reasoning of both sides follows in greatly condensed form. The side supporting shen held that it was the only true translation for the biblical “G o d , even though it never had had diis meaning historically because of the absence of a Chinese monotheistic faith. However, it was comparable to the Greek 8e6leted the translation of Leviticus when he died in 1854. 5.2.2. Lord’s Translations and Revisions Dean, who would have been the logical successor for the unflnished trans­ lation work, had returned to die U.S. in 1853 and retired from the ABMU in 1857, making it seem highly improbable that he would finish the trans­ lation of the OT. The Baptist mission stations in China were thus left witfiout a complete version of the OT in Chinese, so that in October 1858 the Baptist mission in Ningbo decided that Goddard's translation should be continued by Edward Clemens Lord (1817—1887),28 who had been with the ABMU in Ningbo since 1847.

25 See letter of June 3, 1850. 24 His cooperation with Chinese assistants in the translation work while still in Bang­ kok was somewhat different: "Two of the native assistaitfs who are good scholars, rendered much assistance in the work of revision. They have gone over a considerable portion of the NT, and noted alterations they judged necessary to render the style plain and idiomatic, leaving it to me to compare it with the original, after which we unitedly endeavour to render the whole both idiomatic and literal" (letter to ABMU of July 1, 1847). In a letter of Oct. 24, 1843, to the ABMU, Goddard mentioned the name of one Chinese assistant during his time in Bangkok: Kiok Cheng. 27 See Annual Report o f the Board o f Managers o f the Baptist General Convention for Foreign Missions 1853. 28 Resolutions quoted in a letter of Lord to ABMU of Oct. 8, 1858.

B a p t is t T r a n s l a t io n W o r k

117

In 1853, Lord had already expressed his strong desire to continue with the translation if Dean would not return to China,29 but his mission society never gave their consent. In fact, when the ABMU was informed about the resolutions of the missionaries in Ningbo, it did not even respond to this proposal.30 So Lord, although deeply frustrated with the situation, worked on the publication of Goddard’s remaining OT parts (Gen. and Exod. 1860, Lev. 1861), on preparing commentaries for some NT books (Eph. 1855, Gal. 1856, Rom. and Heb. 1859, 1 Cor. 1861)，and on the publica­ tion of his translation of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5-7) (1851/57). Because of long-lasting conflicts with his mission in the United States and in Ningbo, he was eventually asked to leave the mission society in 1863,31 but he stayed in Ningbo as the U.S. consul. He started to work on a revision of the NT by Goddard, which he published in 1872. His revision was not only used by his own mission, but also by the Southern Baptist mission.32 In 1874 he was reappointed by the ABMU as an uiq>aid missionary,33 and when his appointment as consul ended in 1881 he resumed his full connection with the ABMU until his death in Ningbo in 1887.

29 MI hope Rev. Dean will be able to return to China—and if so I think he should by all means come to Niogpo [Ningbo]—in order to carry on the work of translating the OT. Unless he should do so it is my intention in tbe course of a year or two more to under­ take the task myself. Indeed my studies have been prosecuted with reference to this object since the death of Rev. Goddard. But if Rev. D. can return it is my earnest de­ sire that he will. For though his health may not be adequate for the entire work alone I might do somewhat perhaps to assist him, and thus the work so much needed, and so well begun by Rev. Goddard, may be acconq^lished" (letter from Lord to ABMU of March 25. 1856). 30 "The question laid before you so long ago of my undertaking to carry on his unfin­ ished work remains where it did. I am not surprised that the proposition did not meet with the Committees approbation, but that no reply at all should have been given to regard of a subject of so much importance, and so respectfully submitted, does in­ deed surprise me. But I shall forbear further comment on the subject until I under­ stand it better, when I have I shall see sufficient reason to acknowledge myself satis­ fied" (letter from Lord to ABMU of Oct. 25, 1859). 31 See letter of ABMU to Lord of March 28, 1863. 32 See Baptist Missionary Magazine 1874, 251; letter from Lord to ABMU in 1887. 3J According to J.R. Goddard (1887, 439) he was invited back by the ABMU because “the Board of the Missionary Union, [felt] that an injustice had been done to him."

118

Part 1 • C h apter 5

5.2.3. Dean’s Old Testament Translation and New Testament Revision In the meantime. Dean had been reappointed by the ABMU in 1863 to the mission station in Bangkok, where he arrived in 1864. After some efforts “to grind the rust off [his] Chinese,"34 he started with the translation of the OT (including the books that had already been translated by Goddard or himself). His translation activities in the next few years were hardly men­ tioned in his letters and diary entries, but in 1866 he published his transla­ tion of the Pentateuch in two volumes, and two years later, in 1868, his conq>leted OT with Goddard’s NT in one volume.35 The publication of a revised NT in two volumes followed in 1870. » These translations and revisions were published by the American and Foreign Bible Society, which was founded in 1836 after having split from the ABS over conflicts about the correct rendering of “baptism” in a Ben­ gali Bible translation.36 Lord’s NT edition was prepared for the American Bible Union, which had itself split ftom the American and Foreign Bible Society in 1850 after a conflict over the term for “baptism” in the English Bible.” 5.2.4. Public Reception The 1853 version of Goddard and the revision by Lord are praised throughout critical literature for their good style and, at the same time, greater faithfulness to the original text than the Delegates’ Version^ or even the version by Bridgman/Culbertson.39 According to Wherry (1890, 54), the versions show a great independence from former translations. Ex-

Letter from Dean to ABMU of Aug. 25, 1865. In 1867 he had already published Joshua through 2 Samuel. 36

See Dwight 1916, 139fT. Almost parallel to that, the BFBS in England experienced the same conflict with Baptist mission societies which also led to the establishment of a new Bible society, the Baptist Bible Translation Society (see Cryer 1979, 55). See Torbet 1973, 278f. See Xu 1972, vol. V, 24; Luo 1988, 38; Zhao 1993. 22.

J9

See New Chinese Bible Centre 1986, 20. This is to be doubted, though. The transla­ tion of John 1:11, for example, rendered w ith 彼至屬己者，而屬己者不受之一 **he came into what (or: to those who) belonged to him, and that (or: those who) be­ longed to him, did not receive him"—in the version by Bridgman/Culbertson, God­ dard translated somewhat more interpretatively w ilh:彼至己地，而己人不接之一 "he came to his territory, and his own people did not receive (or: accept) him."

B a p t is t T r a n s l a t io n W o r k

119

actly this aspect, however, is denied and strongly criticized by others.40 Regarding the first chapter of John, these criticisms do not prove to be jus­ tified. The 1853 NT of Goddard differs far more from die Delegates’ Ver­ sion dian the version by Bridgman/Culbertson, not only in its avoidance of all the free renderings of the Delegates' Version, but also in its distinctly different character. The translation of John 1:2 may illustrate this. Goddard translated 彼 於 元 始 偕 神 。萬 物 由 彼 而 造 一“This was in the beginning with God (shen). The myriad creatures were created by (or: through) it.” The Delegates’ Version rendered the same v erse : 是 道 ，元始與上帝共在 也 。萬 物以道而造 一“This Logos: (it) was in the beginning together with God (shangdi). The myriad creatures were created by (the) Logos.” The style of language is comparable, but the emphasis，the terminology, and the principles of translation are different.41 Instead of the Delegates’ Version’s only partly translated first part of John 1:7 (其至爲光作證 一 “he came to [do] witness for the light”42), Goddard followed the original text more faithfully by rendering i t : 其 來 爲 證 。以證光 一“he came to witness (or: for the witness), with witness for the light.” The revision by Lord does show some changes similar to the Delegates’ Version,^ yet it retains its independent character. Interestingly, some of those who highly praise Goddard’s translation can also be shown to be ignorant of the actual version. In his article of 1890 (p. 54)，Wherry falsely claimed that the 1872 revision by Lord first appeared in 1883, and this error is perpetuated by a great number of

40 Giles (1881/82, 151f.) states: "Indeed, it would appear that the latter [Goddard's NT】is throughout but a servile copy of the other [Delegates' Version], words being occasionally substituted, added, or left out, as if to prove the independent spirit of the translator, or from the exigencies of the text in reference to his own particular sect." Edkins likwise writes in a letter to the LMS of Sept. 1852, that “the style and the phraseology of the Delegates' Version has been very much imitated." 41 The different translation principle appears here especially in the Delegates’ Version’s substitution of nouns (“Logos”）for pronouns of the Greek text, which Goddard avoided. 42 See ch. 4.1.6. 43 Lord—like the translators of the Delegates’ Version—alio tried to reduce the number of pronouns for the sake of a better Chinese style, even if this was not in accordance with the Greek text (see vv. 2,4), and changed a small number of terms according to the Delegates' Version where terms had become commonly en^loyed in Christian usage (in John 1:14 Goddard's end 恩慈 was changed to endian 恩典丨“grace”] or zhenshi 眞實 to zhenli 眞理丨“truth”】).

120

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 5

authors.44 Other influential writers, such as Muirhead (1890, 36) or Broomhall (1934, 71), only referred to Goddard as “highly” or **favoura­ bly spoken of,” thus displaying their own ignorance of the version. Be­ cause the translations by Goddard, Dean, and Lord were not Protestant umainstream versions,” most historians were not familiar with them, and for the same reason these versions were hardly ever employed by later translators.

5.3. British Baptists: Hudson Another Baptist translation of that time period was the NT translation by the British Baptist Thomas Hall Hudson (1800—1876). Hudson, a mission­ ary of the General Baptist Missionary Society, was sent as the first British Baptist to China together with William Jarrom (no dates available). They arrived in Ningbo in 1845 where they founded a mission station. Jarrom retired from China in 1850,45 leaving Hudson alone on this post. His mis­ sion society also withdrew from the mission station, so that in 1853 Hud­ son was left without its support.46 He stayed in Ningbo, however, where he continued to work on a NT translation. In a letter to his mission society of October 14, 1851,47 he described his translation activities: The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles have been printed, and this year, James, Romans, Ephesians, Jude, Galatians, and Colossians have been published. The first six chapters of the book of Genesis have been long in circulation. Dr. Marshman’s excellent translation has been the Chinese basis of all the portions of divine truth which we have printed. I have had before me the Greek Testament, the English version, and the various Chinese versions to aid me in giving, to the best of my ability, the will and mind of God to the people to whom you sent us. I can truly say I have been careful in this matter, and from what I hear and judge, I really hope the object has to a good extent been attained. The version may be improved and corrected in future editions. 44 See Ensor 1892; Cheng 1947; Garnier/Feng 1934. Unfortunately, in many Western and Chinese works on Bible translation, plagiarism is a very common feature. In this case it becomes very obvious. 43 He left Ningbo because he found “his views so different from those of his colleague, as to render codperation impracticable” (Wylie 1867, 154). 46 See Galpin (1876, 366). Williamson (1957, 18f.) and Stanley (1992, 177) give later dates for the end of the support. 47 Quoted in The Baptist Repository and Missionary Observer 1852, 10Iff.

B a p t is t T r a n s l a t io n W o r k

121

Elsewhere, he referred to the support he had in his translation activities: “Of course we have been aided by [Chinese] Church helpers, to whom all are indebted for help.” 48 Besides the publication of the NT books already mentioned in the letter above, all of which were published in 1851, Hudson published Philippians and Hebrews in 1852 and the complete Epistles with Revelation in 1866.49 The complete NT was finally published in 1867.50 Like the translations of the American Baptists, this version also was published by the American and Foreign Bible Society. 5.3.1. Principles of Translation Hudson gave an outline of his theory of translation in a later published let­ ter of 186651 in which he praised the translation by Marshman and Morri­ son,52 because the “Sacred Texts of the originals were regarded by them with rigid care and exactness” (p. 9). He emphasized the important role that the foreign missionary ought to play in the process of translation,53 whereas the Chinese teacher would be only to some degree responsible for the style.54 An indigenous style did not play an important role in Hudson’s understanding, for the message of the Bible might appear “to the wisdom of the Chinese to be foolishness; but the rock of offence does not lie at the door of the Christian Translator” (p. 31). With these views it is not very

48 Undated letter, quoted in The Baptist Repository and Missionary Observer 1852, 254. 49 See Hykes 1916, 6. 50 The date that the copies in the BFBS and BMS Archives bear. Most other publica­ tions give 1866 as the publication date. 51 To the Methodist Episcopal missionaries R.S. Maclay and O. Gibson, who proposed the translation of a standard version of the Bible in Chinese in 1864 (see ch. 9, fn. 2). Hudson strongly opposed such an idea, because in his view the time was not yet ripe for that. 52 "Few writers have exceeded the literary labours of those devoted men" (Hudson 1866, 9). 51 “For the ideas the selection of appropriate characters and giving the tmth of the gospel to the people, we are the responsible guides, and must decide” (ibid., 10, italics by Hudson). 54 “In regard to the idiom, the arrangement of characters and compounds, and the position of connectives, the Teacher may have some liberty, for the language from childhood and long study has been his own” (ibid.).

122

Part 1 • C h apter 5

surprising that the Delegates’ Version “failed to give satisfaction” (p. 15) to Hudson. Based on the translation of John 1, the influence of Marshman/Lassar's translation that he claims in the letter above as his basis can only detected to a small degree. However, it does show in passages like verse 16 (areceived ... grace upon grace”） which Hudson translated widi 受恩于 恩焉 一 "received grace (en) proceeding grace” (Marshman/Lassar: 受寵 于寵焉 一 “received grace [chong] proceeding grace ”)；verse 14 (“beheld his glory") which Hudson rendered 睹其榮一 “gaze at his (qi) glory” (Marshman/Lassar 睹 厥 榮 一“gaze at his [Jue] glory); or single terms like shuzhi 述 知 一“explain” (verse 18). On the other hand, it is also recognizable that other translations were used for Hudson’s version. Verse 5a (“and the light shines in die dark­ ness") is identical with Morrison/Milne’s and Medhurst/Giitzlaff/Bridgman's 夫光輝耀于暗 一“this light shines (brightly) in the darkness," and Medhurst/Giitzlaff/Bridgman's (unfortunate) transliteration feili 非 立 (liter­ ally: “don’t stand”）for “Philip” was adapted in verse 43. Influences of the translation by Goddard, also a Baptist translation published in Ningbo, cannot be traced, with the (logical) exception of jin 浸 ，by that time the common Baptist term for “baptism.” Overall, the translation by Hudson is criticized as somewhat awkward,55 and it is thus not surprising that there was no further influence from this version. The relative obscurity of his person and his translation becomes appar­ ent in his obituary in the General Baptist Magazine (1876, 78): With regard to his work, the writer is not aware whether he [Hudson] ever formed a church in Ningpo [Ningbo]; nor can he say whether there was any chapel or room in which service was held. Special attention was given to the education of the young, and to the preparation and printing of Scriptures, books or tracts. Not having a complete list of the works prepared, translated, revised and printed by Mr. H. the writer cannot enumerate all. But he has seen and handled the “New Testament."

For example, a sentence like 此係他所及吾論者（“This was he of whom I said，” John 1:15) is in its structure close to the original, but hardly acceptable from a sty­ listic Chinese point of view.

B a p t is t T r a n s l a t io n W o r k

123

5.4. Summary The withdrawal of the Baptist missionaries from the missionaries of other Protestant denominations during the project of the Delegates’ Version came as no surprise, as the relative peace of the separation proves (especially in comparison to the rather volatile split of the British and American mission­ aries). Though the Baptists had participated in the translation project from its inception, their definition of themselves in regard to Bible translation as a separate entity from the rest of the Protestant missionary body had not led them to expect to finish the project with the others. This is only empha­ sized by the fact that, both in America and England, the Bible societies also had experienced withdrawals of Baptist groups. The terminological prob­ lem with the translation of “baptism,” the original cause of the conflict, can therefore by no means be considered the primary reason for the sepa­ ration—the Baptist mission societies had long been given the right to pub­ lish Delegates' Version editions with their term for “baptism.”56 Their role as a separate entity also meant that the translation activities of the Baptists were widely unknown. That even the authors of Baptist publi­ cations are not well informed about their translation activities57 is partly because several of the Baptist Bible translators left their respective mission society at some stage,58 so that no records exist during these periods. The tragedy of the history of Baptist translation is that generations of Bible translators hardly benefitted from their fairly high-quality but unknown translations, especially of the American Baptists. The Baptist body was by no means homogenous in its Bible translation efforts. In fact, there was considerable conflict among the Americans, and between the American and the British side there was not even an attempt at cooperation, a fascinating parallel to the other Protestant missionaries. The differences in the translation principles were striking, especially between Hudson and Goddard. In a sense, the British Baptist Hudson fol­ lowed the understanding of the non-Baptist American missionaries regard­ ing his principles of faithful translation, with the distinction that he exer­ cised them to a much greater degree. Additionally, he hardly relied on the help of Chinese assistants, resulting in a translation which must be consid­ ered a failure in its lack of comprehensibility and thus usefulness.

56 Seech. 4.1.1. 57 See Garnier/Feng 1936; Williamson 1952; Watson 1970; Xu 1972. 58 Dean, Lord and Hudson.

124

Part 1 • C h apter 5

The translation by Goddard and his successors differed not only from Hudson's version but also from other translations. Especially Goddard re­ lied much more on Chinese help, if not guidance, than any other translator. Furthermore, he and his successors were much more independent ftom former versions of which they did not have to produce revisions, or pseudo-revisions, and they also did not have to endure interdenominational conflicts forcing compromises on their work.

6. VARIOUS TRANSLATIONS OF BIBLICAL BOOKS

6.1. Translations by Chinese 6.1.1. Mark and Luke by Feng Yasheng The first Protestant Bible translation done by a Chinese is relevant simply because of its historical curiosity. In 1816, two Chinese, Feng Yasheng 瑪 亞 生 （1792 - ca. 1829) from Xiangshan 香 山 （ today’s Zhongshan/Guangdong) and Feng Yaxue 瑪亞 學 （ 1798-?) from Huangpu (Guangdong), left China for Europe.1 While in England in 1821, they were invited to go to Germany, and eventually came to Berlin in 1823. Here they were put on public exhibit as the first Chinese in Germany until they were employed by the Prussian king Friedrich Wilhelm III (r. 1797-1840) and sent to Halle, where an Orientalistic de­ partment had been established. Wilhelm Schott (1803-1889), later the first Professor of Sinology in Berlin, learned Chinese from them and published his habilitation and a German translation of the Confucian Lunyu 論言吾 in 1826 with their help.2 In the same year they were called back to the court, where Feng Yasheng translated Luther’s Kleiner Katechismus {Smaller Catechism) as well as the Gospels of Mark and Luke. The manuscripts were presented to the royal library in 1834,3 and today they are in the East Asian collection of the state library in Berlin (Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, PreuBischer Kulturbesitz, Ostasienabteilung). Feng’s translation of the Gospel of Mark is separated into two volumes (1: Mark 1-9:30, 2: Mark 9:31-16), and Luke into three volumes (1: Luke 1-8:28, 2: Luke 8:29-17, 3: Luke 18-24). The preface to the first volume of Luke states, in broken German (and Chinese):

1

For biographical information on Feng Yasheng and Feng Yaxue, see Schwarz 1990. The author is indebted to Hinrich Schaer for bringing his atteittion to this translation.

2

This proved later to be a translation from Joshua Marshman's Lunyu in English (see ch. 2, fh. 127)

J

See Gimm 1995, 595.

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 6

126

我寫波士坦十一月十八一千八百二十八，

Ich schreibe Potsdam den 18*" November achtzehn hundert acht und zwanzig, 唐人馮亞星 4 Chinese filng-A-sseng This is accompanied by a peculiar poem.5 Everything, including the fol­ lowing translation, appears in parallel form: the Chinese text first, then the Latin transcription of the Chinese characters,6 followed by the German text. The translation is interlinear, with the Chinese following the German text by Luther (including Luther's chapter headlines). As a result of this procedure the Chinese text is quite incomprehensible, as is evident in the quotation above or in the first three verses of Mark 1: -•前即始之福音與耶稣基利士督子神

“ 1. DiB ist der Anfang des Evangelii von Jesu Christo, dem Sohne Got­ tes. 二K 如錄載咨先知紫夫今我遣 2. Als geschrieben stehet in den Propheten: Siehe. Ich sende meinen 使往爾面前以先備爾路也

Engel vor dir her, der da bereite deinen Weg vor dir. 節有人一聲呼宣在野處備爾

3. Es ist eine Stimme eines Predigers in der Wusten, bereitet 4

For an unknown reason he used the character xing 星 instead of sheng in his name. Both characters are part of one phonetic series (see Karlgren 1923, 257f.), though, and thus are interchangeable to a certain degree. In 1826, he was baptized and adopted the name Friedrich Wilhelm Asseng (see Schwarz 1990, 88). Friedrich Wilhelm was the name of the Prussian king and Asseng a form of Feng’s Chinese given name.

乃一神在於通天下也， “Nur ein Gott ist in alien Landen, 其扑者偕爲衆民，在達智 Ihn beten alle Volker an; In Deutsch之地其權者，在埋立其木 land waltet er, in China, stets derselbe, 其教基利十都，孔夫子汝 Ihn lehrte Christus, ihn Con-fu-tse uns!” 6 The Chinese transcription proves the Cantonese origin of Feng. The transliteration of the above-given date is: sab je t ngiit sab bat je t zin bat pah ngii sab bat; in Man­ darin (pinyin) it would have been: shi yi yue shi ba yi qian ba bai er shi ba, whereas in today's transliteration of Cantonese it would have been the much closer: sap ja t jy t sap bat ja t tsin bat bak ji sap bat (transliteration according to Guangzhou biaozJiun yueyin shengyun). The use of tang 廣 for “China” in his poem and the preface also reveals Feng’s origin, this term being preferred by Cantonese.

5

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

127

主之道値其厥路也

den Weg, des Herm, machet seine Steige richtig. ” It is apparent that the Chinese text is dictated by German rather than Chi­ nese syntax. For example, possessive phrases are formed according to German, where the determiner follows the determined (see verse 1, shizhi Juyin 始 之 t 畐音•)，or the pronoun in the position of a subject follows the verb in verse 3 (bei er 備 爾 )，thus imitating the German “bereitet (ihr)." The terminology that is employed would be remarkably close even to today’s terminology, if a comparison of these verses with the same passage in Morrison’s translation did not reveal that the latter was used as the basis by Feng, who only remodeled the text according to German syntax. Morri­ son has: 一前耶穌基利士督神子福音之始。二如錄載先知輩害云，夫今遣我使 面 前 以先輩我路也。三一人之聲呼于野曰，爾 備 主 之 道 ，値 其 路 。

Not only the transliteration of wJesus Christ，” as well as all the other trans­ literations in the following text, are identical,7 or basic terms like shen 神 (“God”)，xianzhi 先 知 （ “prophet”)，shi 使 （ “messenger” and not Luther’s “Engel”)，or zhuzhi dao 主 之 道 （“way of the Lord"), but also most other phrases. Only where German required an addition of particles that the Chi­ nese text did not have, did Feng add these (see verse I, ji 艮[3 (“difl”）and yu 與 (“von”)，particles which do not even make sense here); otherwise he followed Morrison’s translation, even so far as to omit passages as in Mor­ rison (see verse 2 ，“behold”/ ”Siehe”> which Feng apparently could not translate from the German text.8 This first translation by a Chinese is, therefore, for the greatest part a copy of a translation by a foreigner, put into an even more foreign style. Even so, it retains its historical noteworthiness. 6.1.2. Matthew and Mark by He Jinshan The first Protestant translation of a biblical book to be published by a Chi­ nese was undertaken by He Jinshan 何 進 善 （ 1817-1871) (also referred to under his hao 號 （literary name) He Futang 何 福堂 ) . He Jinshan became a

7

Note the different transliteration of “Christ” in the preface’s poem (see fn. 5), which shows that Feng used his own transliterations as long as he did not have Morrison’s translation as his basis.

'

In one passage he corrected Morrison’s translation, though, where Morrison used wo lu 我 路 — “my way” — for “your way" (er lu 爾路）in verse 2.

128

Part 1 • C h apter 6

Christian in 18389 and was taken on as a student of English, Greek, and Hebrew by the LMS missionary James Legge (1815-1897).10 Legge was highly impressed with He's Christian faith, his character, and his linguistic abilities.11 In the early 1840s, Legge was planning to publish a HebrewChinese dictionary and **a correct version of the Old Testament” with He Jinshan, who had already translated some “in^x>rtant portions [of the OT] incomparably better than the translation we have."12 This plan for an OT translation was not executed, a state of affairs that was certainly influenced by the decision of the British Delegates’ Version translators to give Legge such a prominent place on the OT translation committee.13 More than ten years later, tfie Gospel of Matthew (1854) and the Gospel of Mark (1856), translated and furnished with commentaries by He Jinshan and revised by Legge, were published in Hong Kong.14 Although the li­ brary catalogs of the BFBS list these editions as part of die BFBS library,13 the author was unfortunately not able to find them there.16 This version is of historical relevance because it was the first serious attempt at a Protestant Bible translation done by a Chinese and shows the first signs of an understanding that the Chinese Bible would eventually have to be translated by Chinese Christians. In a letter of January 12, 1841, to the LMS, Legge stated that “native scholars only can produce a version that will declare the mind of the spirit, and be fitted for general use,” a perception far beyond that of most other missionaries of his era.

In 1842 he became a teacher in the Anglo-Chinese College in Hong Kong (see Horne 1894, 311) and in 1846 was ordained as a pastor (see Zha 1982, 12). See letter from He Jinshan to LMS of Jan. 16, 1841. In a letter of Jan. 12, 1841, Legge wrote to the LMS: “He writes in English himself and entirely of himself. I can give him my most cordial recommendation. I believe him to be led by the Spirit of God, and animated by an ardent love for our Saviour. He is out of sight the most accomplished Chinaman living ... and I have no hesita­ tion in saying that he reads and understands H^>rew better than four-fifths of those who leave any of our Dissenting-Colleges at home." Ibid. See ch. 4.2. Later editions were published in 1868 in Hong Kong and 1874 in Shanghai. See Darlow/Moule (1903, vol. 11-1，198) and Spillett (1975, 26, 28). According to Pfister (1999, 70f.), copies are available in the Indian and Oriental Office of the British Library (catalogue #155116.C.2.) and in the Guangdong provin­ cial library.

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

129

6.1.3. Mark 1-4 by Yan Fu The translation of the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark done by Yan Fu 嚴 復 （1853-1921) (also known under his zi 字 [style】Yan Jidao 嚴 幾 道 ）is also noteworthy in its historical context. Yan was the most influential translator of Western works into Chinese. His translations included titles by authors like T.H. Huxley, A. Smith or E. Spencer. In the preface to his translation of Huxley’s Evolution and Ethics (published 1893; Chinese title Tianyan lun 天 演 論 ，published 1898)，Yan formed the basis of a Chinese translation theory which is used up to the present day to judge translations, including Bible translations. The thi three central terms in his theory are xin fg —faithfulness (to the basis text), da iveyanc (of meaning), andya 雅 —elegance (of style)}1 達 —conveyance transl: Yan’s; translation of the first four chapters of the Gospel of Mark, pub­ lished in 1908, was inaugurated and supported by the BFBS. Bondfield, the agent of the BFBS, was told by an Mintelligent and progressive Chinese gentleman ... that the style in our Wenli versions of the Bible was inferior to the style of the best non-Christian books,”18 and thus approached Yan to transli slate the beginning of the Gospel of Mark. A note by Bondfield on the back cover of the translation read: This experimental translation in current Wenli has been made without tbe aid of any foreigner, from the New Testament in English.19 The translator however, has had copies of existing Wenli versions of the New Testament before him for reference. Yan referred to other Chinese translations as far as terminology, but not in stylistic or interpretational matters. His translation has shangdi 上/帝 — “God” （1:1), shengling 聖 g — “Holy Spirit” (1:8), xili 洗 禮 “baptism” （1:8), and fuyin 福 音 — “Gospel” (1:1), thus using common terms of Christian usage from other Bible translations. In other passages, however, his version displays an interpretational method of translation and great freedom ftom former translations. In verse 1:1 Yan rendered for “Jesus Christ the Son of God” (English Revised Version) : 上帝子基督 17 An important source for this theory was most likely A.F. Tytler’s Essay on the Principles of Translation (published 1791). The author is indebted to Huang Ko-wu of Academia Sinica for this information. 18 See BFBS Report 1909, 460. 19 The English version that Bondfield mentioned is the English Revised Version (1881) rather tlurn the Authorized Version (1611). In verse 1:2, for exai叩le, Yan translated 以赛亞先知 一“Isaiah (the) Prophet"—thus adding “Isaiah” in accordance with the English Revised Version, but against the Authorized Version.

Part 1 • C h apter 6

130

l l r

n a

1

l i - s

.1 -I

1

y

f= - 3

=

r n s d o

!

i g

h i y

d b

n

h

r

i

u s c

k

c a

=

f

e

y l

=

t

t c n l

:

d r o

w h s; sa 4 6 0

e

t h

i r EE

e i a

i

g

| m

T o

t t

u

l

l n

o n n l t i n le e l

a

l a

ii. 3i l 5 -

e

u l

h a -

e

b e

3r

d

n

t h

t r

s t y

l

o w

a s n s c o l n

i

t

n a

y .

h

h

n o

t

s

s c

r J = l- z f lit •l l z . 1=

I h i

l r a E !

Christ the Son of God” (English Revised V ersion): 上 帝 子 基 督 耶 穌 一 “(the) son of God, Christ Jesus"—thus interpreting Christ as the family name or title which—according to Chinese custom—have to be placed first.20 In verse 1:3, he translated 平 治 主 之 道 塗 。俾所行者直 一 “put in order the way of the Lord, so it is straight where he walks on”一for “make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight" (English Revised Version), here making the second part of the sentence into a clause of the ilrst, apparently for stylistic reasons. Yan, who was not a Christian, started this Bible translation because he “hoped to make the Bible a great classic for the Chinese."21 The language that he enq)loyed was classical Chinese, in which he tended to use twosyllable terms. Whereas the Delegates’ Version has the three-character phrase 備主道 一“prepare the Lord’s way”一in the first part of Mark 1:3 quoted above, Yan used twice as many characters, but all of his terms are of classical use. The term daotu 道 塗 一“way”一has additionally the clas­ sical connotation of the “way that the man of virtue (Junzi 君子 ）walks on," thus referring to Jesus as a man of virtue. Yan’s style was enthusiastically praised by Chinese Christians,22 and even by the contemporary Chinese authority on biblical literature, Zhu Weizhi (1941, 72). Zhu described the style as being of “classical ele­ gance,n and expressed his regret at the discontinuation of the ation.

l

y

no s t

20 In the Greek text this order is to be found in passages in the Pauline Epistles (see Rom. 1:1, «/ al.) but not in the Gospels. 21 See Spillett 1975, 45. 22 See BFBS Report 1909. 460. 2} See ibid.

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

131

by a foreign Missionary Committee has never yet been made. A Gospel so translated may become a classic’ and, at any rate, may rank with the very best Chinese literature. This was expressed in the midst of the translation of the classical Union Version, which, according to this statement, was not expected to become Chinese literature to the degree that Yan’s translation could.

6.2. Translations by Western Missionaries In the course of the last century’s Bible translations, there were a number of individuals working on translations of single biblical books into classical Chinese. Several works that are commonly listed as such are only reprints from the text of the Delegates' Version with the addition of a commentary, such as the publications by Hobson and Muirhead (John 1874; Colossians 1875) and MacGowan (Psalms 1-39, 187524). Others however, are genuine new translations. 6.2.1. Acts by Gaillard Charles W. Gaillard (d. 186225), a missionary of the American Southern Baptist Mission, came to Canton in 1854. In 1860 he published a transla­ tion of the book of Acts with commentary. The translation was based on the Delegates’ Version but with an attempt to be more faithful to the Greek text.26 6.2.2. Mark and Acts by Nevius John L. Nevius (1829-1893), of the American Presbyterian Mission, worked in Ningbo from 1854 until he moved to Dengzhou (today’s Penglai

24 See Spillett 1975, 31. 23 Date of birth not available in archives of Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention. 26 In verse 2:1b the Delegates' Version translators and Gaillard both translated ac­ cording to the interpretation of the Textus Receptus (“they were all with one accord in one p\3LCtu—Authorized Version-, modem interpretation omits “with one accord"), but Gaillard with 皆 同 在 ，惟一心 一“a丨 丨were together with one mind"—instead of the Delegates' Version's 門徒咸集惟一心 一“the apostles were ail assembled with one mind"—more closely to the basis text. The next verse, 2:2 (“And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent, rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting"), is identical in both versions with the exception of an added passive voice in Gaillard’s version (充滿所坐之室 instead of the Delegates' Version’s 充滿坐室）for the sake of greater clarity.

Part 1 • C h apter 6

132

in Shandong) in 1861. In 1891, he was called into the committee of trans­ lators of the Mandarin Union Version in 1891.27 However, his translations of Mark (published 1862, a later edition in 1866) and Acts (published 1865), bodi with commentary, were in classical Chinese. Nevius also strove for a greater fiaidifulness than the Delegates' Ver­ sion7* and employed a similar terminology to the version by Bridgman and Culbertson.29 6.2.3. Jo

1 John by Turner

F. Storrs r (1834-1916), a missionary of the LMS and from 1859 on a co-worker of the later Bible translator J. Chalmers (1825-1899) in Can­ ton, published an edition of the Gospel and the first Epistle of John with commentary in 1870 in Hong Kong.30 6.2.5. Hebrews by Dodd Samuel Dodd (1832-1894), like Nevius a missionary of the American Presbyterian Mission, was in Ningbo from 1861 on. In 1875, he published his translation of the Hebrews with commentary. Its attenq>t for greater faithfulness than the Delegates’ Version makes it somewhat comparable to Nevius's translation, except that it shows a greater independence from the Delegates' Version.^1 27 Seech. 10.5.3.1. 28 In Mark 1:2, for example, Nevius translated i6ou (視哉 一“look!”〉，which the Delegates ’ Version translators had omitted 29 Also in Mark 1:2, Nevius employed Bridgman/Culbertson’s yuyan 預目•一 “prophet” 一 instead of xianzhi 先知 of the Delegates’ Version. 30 See Spillett 1975, 27. Darlow/Moule (1903, vol. H-l, 109) and Stauffer (1922, 452) refer to it as the Epistles of John. The author has not been able to see a copy of this translation. 31 In Hebrews 2:11 (“For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one (Father); for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren"). Dodd rendered夫施聖潔者，與受聖潔者，皆出於一，彼故不愧稱之爲兄弟一 -for the one who sanctifies and the one who receives sanctification, both come from one, he therefore is not ashamed to call them brothers." This is radically different from the Delegates' V ersion's續人罪者，與被愤罪者，同出於一，故視若兄弟 ，不以爲恥 一“the one that redeems the sin of men, and the one whose sin was re­ deemed, come equally from one, therefore (he) sees them as brothers and is not ashamed of that." Here the very free translation of the Delegates’ Version is sup­ planted by a fairly faithful rendering.

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

133

6.2.5. Pentateuch by Wylie According to the BFBS Report of 1904 (p. 412), Alexander Wylie (18151887), who came to Shanghai in 1847 as a LMS missionary and became the BFBS agent in China from 1863 through 1877, translated the Penta­ teuch into classical Chinese. This was apparently never published, though.

6.3. Russian Orthodox Efforts: New Testament Translation by Gury A New Testament translation by the small Russian Orthodox community in Peking in the 1860s was recognized in the Protestant community as a noteworthy effort.32 The Russian Orthodox church had been in Peking since the end of the 17th century, but since most of its members were descendants of Russian prisoners from the capture by Chinese troops of Albasin in 1661,33 no ef­ forts were made to translate any of the Russian Orthodox writings into Chinese. The members of the mission acted as official representatives of the Russian government. This changed in 1860, when Peking was opened to foreigners and the propagation of Christianity. The Russian Orthodox church separated into two parts, one that was solely concerned with diplo­ matic affairs and another diat propagated Orthodox Christianity.34 The head of the 13th legation, Archimandrite Gury Karpov (18581864; d. 1882)，translated the New Testament and eventually published it in 1864 in two parts.33 He described his ideas of translation in the preface of the New Testament: It is difficult to clearly translate the customs and other contents of a time of more than a thousand years ago. For a clear understanding one must write explanations to the Bible. Those (names of) people, places, titles and others which were difficult to translate, were transliterated.

12 Muirhead (1890, 35) noted that the version **scarcely [forms] a safe guide for us in our translatorial labours," yet it **deserves commendation in the main, as the pro­ duction of an excellent Chinese scholar." As a matter of fact, the Orthodox version was used for at least two Protestant translations (see ch. 7.3.3 and 8.3.1). 33 See Innocent 1916, 678. Albasin was a small station in the area of today's Zeja in the Russian Far East. 34 See ibid. 35 The first part (Fuyin jing 描音經）contained the Gospels, the second part (Zongtu jing 宗徒經）the apostolic writings.

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 6

134

With all my strength I have spent several years without ceasing to translate carefully and faithfully to the original text. It is easy to trans­ late literally, if one simply transfers the foreign language into Chinese; however, if one does not dare to alter the meaning and the spirituality, and at the same time attempts to make it into a book which will be propagated widely, it takes the full wisdom of a person to pry into this mystery, (author’s translation)

隱

l

|

t .

hat

( r

=

ou

丨

e

ed

e

y

t h

t

l t

on

s i .

o l

s a

t h i b» u l

S

PO

1

6 8

}

^ s

6

y

g

2

2 4

1

l

m

1

86

1 9

1 9

y

h

.

i

s 經

fr

3 6

::

a

s

|

-

i

If

沾

i . t

. I

o i r e l i ,

M

e

a

w . s e

t h s t 1 6 ) f e v J u OA so o u e n o f t h ( v ^

l Hy t )

o

l

se, 5

t i ok i t

啦

n d G U

t a

N i

(

s

k i

e I s. eb

.N nh

:

IA 92

1 8

e f

p

I

SS

n

Ih

a l r a t e l

3 9 4 0 4 1

T;

ac ein, l

o n

I

L O . l p r p ol f

of

ns 1 3 l s r l

e p

M

3 6 s e J 7

l r_HII 隱

Gury did not translate the New Testament alone, but he had several assis­ tants. Long Yuan 隆源 spent two years editing the work,36 and three other assistants, apparently Chinese converts with adopted Russian names, Mariya (瑪 糊 亞 37)，Nikita ( 尼闲他 ）and Moisei (摩伊些乙)，examined the complete work for three years.38 The translation's terminology differs from Protestant translations, and in many cases follows Cadiolic usage with terms like tianzhu 天主 一 “God,” shengyan 聖 言 一“(Holy) W o rd , shouxi 授 洗 一“b ap tize,39 or tianshen 天神 一 “Angel.” Even terms like xueqi 血氣 一“life energy (literally: blood and breath)"—in John 1:14 (“blood[s】”）that seemi seemingly were only used by Protestant translators {Delegates' Version and the version by Bridgman/Culbertson as well as many later ones) can be traced back to early Catholic usage as well.40 The version is described by some as a mere revision or copy of Morri­ son/Milne's translation or other Protestant versions,41 a description which does not prove to be true; nevertheless, Gury certainly had Protestant translations at his disposal, too. Passages like 其 至 属 己 ，而属己者不 受 之 一“he (qi) came into his own, and that (or: those who) belonged to him, did not receive him"—in verse 11 are very similar to Bridgman/ Cul­ bertson's 彼 至 屬 己 者 ，而 屬 己 者 不 受 之 一“he (bi) came into what (or: to those who) belonged to him, and that (or: those who) belonged to him, did not receive him." In general, Gury shared the translation principle of faith­ fulness to the basis text with Bridgman/Culbertson, even though Gury—as

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

135

described in his preface—attempted to make it into a propagable Chinese text, as shown in the extreme avc >f pronouns.42 The translation by Gury is in a translation with many more lib­ erties than other versions, because Gury did not have any tradition in Bible translation to follow. This shows in unique terms such as 發 瓶 些 乙 門 人 一 “people who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees"—for “Pharisees,” but especially in the system of transliteration. Unlike the other translators, who used English, Latin, Greek, or Hebrew as their basis of transliteration, Gury employed Russian. For this reason a name like “John” (Russian: Ho a m i) becomes yiwang 伊望 instead of the Protestant yuehan 約翰 or the Catholic ruowang 若 望 （for “John the Evangelist"; “John the Baptist” is ruohan 若翰 ) . Linguistically more interesting, though, are two proce­ dures which already appeared in the above-cited transliterations for “Mariya,” “Moisei,” “N ik ita, o r “Pharisees.” Gury combined two char­ acters in one to create syllables that do not exist in the Chinese language, like ki 践 or r/i/43 獼 . In the first example, the new character is made up of yi 伊 and ke 克 where the former gives the final sound [i:] and the latter the initial sound [k]. In the second example, the character is made up of li 利 ([i:]) and er 爾 ([r]). Gury’s new creations are to be read from right to left, like traditional Chinese texts, nevetheless, a rather awkward method considering that each Chinese character is normally written and read from left to right. Several more transliterations according to this principle are to be found in the first chapter of John, as in “Jerusalem” (yerhusalim 耳[5翻 薩利木一丨fcpyca ； iiiM) or “Andrew” (angdrhei 昂德調 一Ahapci'i). In both of these and in some of the transliterations above, another uncommon pro­ cedure can be seen: the significantly smaller size of some characters makes them lose their vowel sound and therefore their existence as an autonomous syllable. The remaining consonant part forms an initial or final sound to another syllable (mu 木 only forms the final [m] and de 德 the initial [d] as part of the double consonant [dr]).44 Both methods of transliteration can also be found in the transliteration of “Jesus Christ”： yiyisus herhistuos 伊伊穌斯合瀰斯托斯一丨 iicyc nct oc . This example illustrates the unwieldiness of the system despite 42 Even in John 1:10, Gury translated 其 光 至 世 一“the light came into the world"— where other translators leave the ambiguity of the Greek text’s pronoun, which refers to the “Word,” “light” or “Jesus.” 43 “Rh” ([r]) is not to be confused with “r” （ 【 幻)，an existing letter in the pinyin system of transliteration. 44 In Japanese, a similar procedure is used in the syllabaries Katakana and Hiragana.

136

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 6

its great accuracy, which was far beyond that of otiier systems. This unwieldiness and its un-Chinese appearance explain, why this system today only serves as a curiosity and never had any influence wliatsoever.45 The transliterations give a strong clue as to the basis text (“original te x t, see Gury’s preface), namely the Russian version of the NT. The NT translation apparently experienced some revision under the head of the 17th legation, Archimandrite Flavian Goretsky (1878-1888; d. 1915), but the author has not seen any actual published version, and any references to the revision are very vague.46 Other Orthodox translations of biblical books include die translation of Psalms by the leader of the 13th and 15th legation, Archimandrite Pallady Kafarov (1849-1858, 1864-1878; 1817-1878), who was renowned for his literary labors and great knowledge of Chinese.47 The Psalms were never published. According to information from members of the Orthodox church in Urumchi, there was another translation of the Gospel of John in the 1970s, but the author has not been able to verify this.

6.4. Summary Apart from the interlinear translation by Feng, which in its translation technique and purpose differed radically from the other translations, the translations by Chinese were attempts at indigenous translations, something that could not be done by a foreigner. It is noteworthy to see how early Legge, a sinologue of great eminence during the last century, saw the sig­ nificance of such a translation and encouraged He Jinshan to start a Bible translation. The translation by Yan Fu must be seen in a similar light. The support­ ers of his translation understood it not as a possible wAuthorized Version” for China but as a supplementary version, which might gain its significance from a literary rather than a religious point of view. This explains why a conservative institution like the BFBS would ask Yan, who was not a Christian, to undertake this tion. It is surely to be regrette neither of these versions were continued, for they both offered opportunities for a process of indigenization of the Bible and Christianity in China. However, the following statement of the 45 For the Orthodox transliterations, cf. Zetzsche 1994, 181. 46 See Muirhead 1890, 35; Bondfield 1914, 471; Zhongwen shengjing qidaoben 1989,

188S. 47 See Martin 1889; Innocent 1916, 68If.

V a r io u s T r a n s l a t io n s

137

author of an editorial in the Chinese Recorder of 1918 (p. 5) must be dis­ countenanced: Chinese mind has been in the form of negative rather than constructive criticism … . Only two attempts [not counting Feng’s work] on the part of the Chinese to translate the Bible [have been done], and in only one of these was the initiative taken by the Chinese [Yan]; and in neither case was the task completed. This may seem true in regard to He’s and Yan’s translation work; in the greater picture, though, it was much less the Chinese side that was negative or passive but rather the Western side which did not allow its Chinese counterpart to gain significance. In all projects of Chinese Bible transla­ tion, Chinese translators were involved but hardly ever acknowledged as such. The translations of single books by Westerners listed in this chapter never gained any significance. It is noteworthy, however, that almost all of the translators joined in disagreement with the liberal translation principles of the Delegates' Version, yet simultaneously accepted and used its stylistic features. Gury’s translation presented some interesting aspects, especially in the feature of transliterations and, apart from the adapted Catholic terminol­ ogy, a fairly great independence firom other works. And for at least two Protestant translations it served as one of several Chinese basis texts.48

44 See ch. 7.3.3 and 8.3.1.

MANDARIN: DISCOVERY OF A LINGUA FRANCA

10

n

at

t I .

e

l n l

s i i o o ft 1 Cs h c l ™ t u tl g u i g s ag r s s d u w a a u u a lp

r i

a B 6

o f

n

K e a l fM

n

r i

a 10n

t :

e

，s

t h

* e l e

K

s s v

m i s t n tI I

j

ote

p r

a

e

Th ch

i n

Milne, one of the first missionaries and Bible translators in China, alluded to Morrison’s (rather theoretical) consideration of using Man­ darin in his NT translation, he explained Morrison’s decision against its use because of its “colloquial coarseness."2 The next generation of Protestant missionaries—the translators of the Delegates Version— rejected Manda­ rin as an appropriate style in their quest to produce great Chinese literature widi Bible translation;3 nevertheless, they also saw unique opportunities of a Mandarin translation to acconq>any the classical translations.4 Only after the lifting of the geographical confinement to Soudi China and Chinese settle­ ments outside China with the Treaty of Tianjin (1858) and the Convention of Peking (1860), resulting in a new opportunity for foreign missionaries to set­ tle in the interior of China as well as Peking and Tianjin, did the missionaries jubilantly recognize the chance for their mission in the Msurprising discov­ ery"5 of Mandarin: No argument is needed to prove that the S.S. [Sacred Scriptures] ought to be enabled to deliver their message from God in the most extensive and cultivated of the dialects of China [Mandarin]. As to the extent of the dialect I will merely remark that it prevails through all the provinces from the Great Wall to the banks of the Yangtsekiang, and as to cultiva­ tion, it has been written for centuries in the common character and con-

1

For Mandarin, see ch. 1, fh. 5.

2 3

Seech. 2.2.1. See ch. 4.1.6.

4 5

Seech. 7.1. Goodrich 1912, 588. Harbsmeier (1988, 73) seems not to have taken the geographi­ cal limitation of the early Protestant missionaries into consideration when he writes that “Christian missionaries were remarkably slow to rediscover (after the Buddhist translators) the need for an easily readable as well as hearable translation of their text into colloquial Chinese."

140

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 7

tains a literature of its own.6 Books in this dialect are read by multitudes to whom those in the learned language are wholly sealed. It is not too much to say, that in this belt of Provinces the Bible in Mandarin will find ten readers, where the Bible in the higher style will find one. For North China, the People's Bible must be in Mandarin.7 (Underline by Martin.) One of the benefits that the missionaries saw in the en^loyment of Manda­ rin in Bible translation was diat the illiterate majority of the Mandarinspeaking Chinese people could understand the Mandarin Bible when read aloud, whereas classical Chinese was only understood by the reader him­ self, making it thus accessible to only a small minority.8 For preaching, the classical language of the Bible had to be transferred by the preacher into spoken language, an additional step which also could be avoided with a Mandarin Bible.9 In addition, the problem of too much reliance on Confucian terminology with the use of classical Chinese could be avoided,10 as well as the sometimes multiple shades of meanings of the written lan­ guage." The influence of Mandarin in Christian literature on the development of the Chinese language was a topic of discussion among missionaries espe­ cially at the first general mission conference in 1877. Goodrich, the later chairman of the Mandarin Union Version translation committee, somewhat hesitantly asked: “Will the Mandarin ever become a universal language in China? I cannot predict, though I sometimes think it will."12 In contrast, A. Martin referred here to the novels of the Ming and Qing dynasties (see ch. 1, fh. 4), which in reality were not written in what is today understood as MMandarin,n but rather a low form of classical Chinese. Letter from Martin to APM of Apr. 12, 1864 (DOHPC, USA). The missionary J.C. Gibson (1890, 67) estimated the number of illiterates in 1890 as 99% for the women and 90% for men, Hughes (1930, 512) 40 years later gave the numbers of 98% (women) and 80% (men) for the north and 80% and 50% for the south of China, citing official sources. The amount of distortion—whether inten­ tional or unintentional—in the early missionaries' descriptions of illiteracy in China is shown in a statement of Bridgman where he claimed that the Chinese Mare a reading people … . Give the Chinese the Bible, and at once a very large proportion of tbe population can read it” (quoted in ABS Report 1832, 638). 9

See Gibson 1890, 68f.

10 See Report o f the Committee o f Translators o f the High Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 273; cf. ch. 11.3.5. See Mateer in Records 1877, 223 See Records 1877, 219.

M a n d a r i n ：D i s c o v e r y o f a U

ngua

Fr a n c a

141

Williamson (1829-1900), the agent of the Scottish Bible Society in China from 1863-1886, quite confidently stated: I think we should push the Mandarin. These different dialects must sooner or later fall under a uniform language. The only one which has any probability of surviving is the Mandarin. We should strive to push this Mandarin over the southern dialects that there may be ultimately only one spoken language.13

7.1. The First Mandarin New Testament Translation:

Nanking Version Long before the interior and the north of China were opened to missionaries, both the British and American translators of the Delegates’ Version had the vision that the Bible should not only be translated in the classical form but also in the “lower” form of Mandarin. Bridgman worked on a transla­ tion of the historical books of the NT into Mandarin, but either never fin­ ished or did not publish them for other reasons.14 Medhurst, accompanied by J. Stronach, was more successful in his translation of the NT into the Mandarin of Nanking. Medhurst had started a translation into the local dialect of Shanghai,13 but for several reasons stopped that enterprise: other translators were also working on translations in the same dialect,16 and Medhurst had started to realize the importance of Mandarin,17 which was strongly influenced by the course that the Taiping rebellion had taken by that time. Ibid., 225. One year later Williamson added that it would become the **spoken and written speech of tbe Chinese" (italics by author; letter to the editor in Chinese Re­ corder 1878, 231). 14

Blodget wrote to the ABCFM in Dec. 1861, shortly after Bridgman's death: “Dr. Bridgman wrote me recently that he had been engaged, at intervals, for six or seven years in preparing a version of the four Gospels and Acts in Mandarin Colloquial. I very greatly desire the manuscripts he has left of these portions of the S.S. [Sacred Scriptures]." According to Martin (letter to ABS of July 30, 1864, quoted in Hills 1965, 58f.) this translation was—like the classical translation—done in cooperation with Culbertson. In 1847, Medhurst had published the translation of John in that dialect (see Wylie 1867, 34). In 1848, Milne published Matthew and McCIatchie published Luke in the dialect of Shanghai, and in 1850, another translation of Matthew was published by Boone and others (see Spillett 1975, 183f.). Medhurst’s colleague in this project, J. Stronach, wrote: “It seemed highly desirable to have a version in both these styles [classical and Mandarin] of a book destined we

142

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 7

In 1853, the Taiping rebels had occupied Nanking and had made it their capital. The pseudo-Christian character of the rebellion had raised great hopes in the West and among some missionaries in China for the spread of Christianity in China. The BFBS started a massive fundraising effort to distribute Bibles in China in September 1853, the “Million Testaments for China" campaign.18 Under these circumstances, Medhurst saw a great op­ portunity to have an influence on the Taiping rebels with a colloquial NT translation in the Mandarin spoken in Nanking, which could possibly re­ place Giitzlaff s revision of the 1836 version which he so highly disap­ proved of and which was used by the Taiping rebels.19 It also provided him with an opportunity to finally publish a version that fully represented his views on Bible translation. He knew that the text of the translation would never have to undergo serious critical examination by the BFBS in this time of great excitement. After the completion of the Delegates’ Version, Medhurst and Stronach engaged and supervised a man from Nanking to transfer the classical Chi­ nese of the Delegates’ Version NT into Mandarin.20 In 1854, the BFBS authorized the publication of 100,000 copies of that version.21 The Gospel of Matthew was published in the same year, and the first 50,000 copies of

trust to exercise a mighty influence on this vast empire. The Sacred Edict, composed by two Emperors, is in both these styles, and neither is thought to invalidate or supersede the necessity of the other. The Delegates* Version is admirably ad^ted as a standard book, to be committed to memory; either in schools or by adult Students—as well as for its principal object of making known to readers generally 'the ways of God to man.’ It is for reading aloud that the Mandarin Colloquial is more suitable, as in this way it can be understood by those who cannot read themselves" (letter to LMS of Oct. 1854). It is noteworthy that Stronach (and Medhurst) represented here a contradictory view to tbeir views displayed in the long letter of three years before, ^iere they use the same reference to the Sacred Edict, but dismiss it as a model, because “it stands alone” (see ch. 3.2). See Cann 1989, 1. In the course of this campaign a total of £52,638 was given, enough to pay for the BFBS's expenditure in China for the next 20 years (see Broomhall 1934, 76), and eventually 950,000 New Testaments or Bibles were printed by 1869 (see MacGillivray 1907, 558). See ch. 3.2. 20

Unfortunately, but characteristically for the attitude of the missionaries, the name of this man is never mentioned. See letter from Stronach to the LMS of Oct. 1854.

M a n d a r i n ：D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

143

the NT were released from the press in 1856,22 followed by the same number in a second edition in 1869.23 7.1.1. Principles of Translation Critics do not credit this version with being a very accurate or good trans­ lation,24 but as the first Protestant Mandarin translation it is seen as a pio­ neer version with great influence on the later course of Chinese Bible translation.25 The examination of the first chapter of John in the Nanking Version^ does prove it to be a transfer from the classical language of the Delegates ’ Version. There are, however, slight changes that cannot be explained from the Greek original, and come only come from a very liberal attitude to­ wards the (Chinese) basis text. This can be seen in the addition of the suf­ fix ren 人 一“person”一in the phrases heiande ren 黑暗的人 一“people of darkness” (Delegates’ Version: anzhe 暗者 一“darkness” (or: “dark ones”） (verse 5, “darkness”)，shijiede ren 世界的人 一 “people of the world" (Delegates’ Version: shi 世 一 “world”）(verse 10, “world”)，or in verse 33 (“he who sent me to baptize in water”）打發我用 水 行 洗 禮 的人 一“the person who sent me to baptize with water” (Delegates' Ver­ sion: 遣 我 以 水 施 洗 者 一“the one who sent me to baptize with water"), thus calling God a - person." In a few cases it becomes obvious that parts of the Nanking Version were entirely based on the Delegates' Version, even without a later reference to the Greek text or sufficient care by the “supervisors” Medhurst and Stronach. The Delegates’ Versionls er 爾 一 “you”一in verse 51，which was either to be read in the plural or singular, but—according to the Greek text—meant as plural, became ni 你 一“you,” which can only be read in the singular. Other alterations are according to the 1836 translation of Medhurst/Giitzlaff/Bridgman,27 the first translation under Medhurst’s leadership which was rejected by the BFBS. 22 See letter from Medhurst to LMS of Sept. 6, 1855. n

See MacGillivray 1907, 558; Spillett 1975, 119.

14 Several authors criticize, for instance, the use of sha 殺 一“to kill"—for a mark of the superlative (see Wherry 1890, 55; Pearce 1912, 292). 25 See Muirhead 1890, 36; Owen 1907, 74. 26 The term “Nanking Version” has never been the official name of this version, but this thesis uses the term for reasons of clarity. The same accounts for the uPeking Version." 27 See siyu 私 欲 一“(selfish) lust" (Delegates' Version: qingyu 情 欲 一“[sexual】de­ sire") ("will of the flesh," v. 13), liili 律 例 一“law” (Delegates' Version: li —

144

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 7

Besides some changed transliterations28 and the employment of Chinese sayings,29 some very colloquial phrases30 were introduced in the Nanking Version, indicating that the language of this NT was based on spoken Man­ darin, and was not an attempt to create a literary form of Mandarin. The difference between the Mandarin of this version and northern Man­ darin only appears in the exclamation particles employed in the Nanking Version, which are not used in the northern language.31 The Nanking Version was reprinted by the BFBS through 188432 and primarily used in the area of Nanking.33 7.2. Burns’s Mandarin Translation of the Psalter In 1867, William Chalmers Bums (1815-1868) published the first transla­ tion of the Psalms into Mandarin. Bums was the first missionary of the English Presbyterian Mission in China and stayed in Peking from 1863 to 1867, where he was significantly occupied with translation work. His main work became the translation of the Pilgrim’s Progress by Bunyan into Mandarin (published 1865), a book which he had already translated into the local dialect of Xiamen (published 1853). The Psalms, which were published by the LMS,34 exerted little if any influence on other versions35 nor were they widely circulated, for they

n

14law") (“Law,” v. 17), or the addition of li 担 一“ceremony”一to the term for “baptism.” For instance, a more common character in the transliteration of “Bethabara” (v. 28) (la 拉 for la 喇）was used.

29 See 踏 來 踏 去 一“walking backwards and forwards" (v. 36, TtEpmai^o) —“to walk [around]"). 30 See xuesheng 平生 “student” (v. 35, “disciple”), baixing 百姓 一“the people (liter­ ally: a hundred surnames)" (v. 31, addition to “Israel” )，wanyangde dongxi 萬樣的 电 西 —“the myriad kinds of things" (v. 3, **everything"), or the employment of qing I# —“please” in imperative phrases (vv. 36, 47). 31 Yo 明 (vv. 9, 33 et al.) or a 呵 (vv. 14, 39). 32 See Spillett 1975, 121. The National Bible Society of Scotland also published an edition in 1881 (see Chinese Recorder 1881, 312) 53 See letter from Wright (BFBS) and Slowan (NBSS) to ABS of Jan. 20, 1888. 34 Spillett (1975, 65) mentions another edition of 1870 by the ABS. 35 Only Griffith John listed them as one model for his translation of the Psalms (see 4.1.3).

M a n d a r i n ：D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

14 5

were—as one critic puts it—- less acceptable to native taste."36 The remark­ able feature of this publication was that it was written in tetrameters,37 win­ ning it praise ftom some who believed this to be more dignified than mere colloquial Mandarin.38 The translation, though made from the Hebrew as the Peking Version translator Edkins testified,39 is not close to the original text, a condition partly due to the dictates of the four- or eight-syllable verses.40 Burns’s en^loyment of Chinese proverbs, as in verse 7 with tianchang dijiu 天長 地 久 一 “long time” (literally: “heaven is' eternal and the earth is lasting”)一emphasizes his attempt to find an indigenous way of translation. 7.3. Peking Version New Testament Translation Although Peking was officially open from 1860 on, missionaries still needed an affiliation with some legation to settle there. One of the first to do this was John Shaw Burdon (1827-1907) of the CMS, who came to Pe­ king as the chaplain of the British legation in 1861. Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky (1831-1906) of the American Episcopal Church Mission, a man who was to become one of the most fascinating figures in the course of Chinese Bible translation, came to Peking in 1862, officially as the in­ terpreter for the American envoy.41 On his journey from Shanghai to Pe­ king he met Henry Blodget (1825-1903), a missionary of the ABCFM in Tianjin, who in 1864 joined him in Peking. Joseph Edkins (1823-1905) of

16 Williamson, quoted in Bums 1975, 513. Edkins complained about the lack of smoothness (ibid., 516). 17 Psalm 23 reads as follow s:上帝乃是我的牧人，故我必定奄無欠缺，主使我臥 靑草中間，領我走到靜水磅邊，使我重魂，出了迷路，帶我直走介莪道途，都 因 自 己 ，名字緣故，雖然走過陰K 死 地 ，有主同在，我必不怕，你棍你杖，付 安 慰 我 ，把設筵席我的仇敵• 俱各自賭• 又曾用油，抹我頭顱• 帶福的杯，滿 到 流 出 ，恩典慈悲，定然和我一生相隨，至終不離，上主屋内，我必居住，天 長 日 久 ，永遠遷移。 M See Wylie in Chinese Recorder 1875, 238. 19 See Bums 1975, 516. 40 See Psalm 23:3 ("he restores my soul") which is translated with 使我靈魂， 出 了这读各 一“caused my soul to leave the path of error." 41 See Muller 1937, 60.

146

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 7

the LMS,42 who had been residing in Tianjin since 1861, moved to Peking in 1863. The American Presbyterian William Alexander Parsons Martin (1827-1916), the last of the translators of the Peking Version, came di­ rectly from Shanghai to Peking in 1863. 7.3.1. Formation of Committee In 1861, the Shanghai corresponding committee of the BFBS had advised the missionaries in North China to prepare a version in the Mandarin used in Peking.43 In response to that, a committee was finally formed in 1864 on Schereschewsky's initiative.44 The committee consisted of the five above-named missionaries: Edkins, Martin, Burdon, Blodget, and Schereschewsky himself.45 Schereschewsky had started to work together with Burdon on a translation of the Anglican Book o f Common Prayer into Mandarin in 1863,46 as well as some portions of the Bible. The different members of the committee had different shares in the work. For Schereschewsky, the work of Bible translation required his whole time and attention during his 12 years in Peking,47 and it was even­ tually to become the main task of his life. Burdon and Blodget also re­ mained active in Bible translation throughout tfieir active lives as mission­ aries. Although Edkins is mentioned as not being much involved in the translation work,4®in a letter from Edkins to the LMS of May 4, 1871, he In 1881, Edkins left the LMS, because of different opinions as to methods of mis­ sion work (see Box 1905, 287). See Darlow/Moule 1903, vol. IM , 211. 44

See Muller 1937, 65. Muller (ibid.) also writes that the committee was formed in the fell, which does not seem to be accurate. Martin wrote in a letter of Apr. 12, 1864, to the APM (DOHPC, USA): “Not long since I consented at the solicitation of three brethren belonging to other Mi&sions to join them in translating a portion of the N.T. into the Mandarin or Court dialect. We have made an encouraging beginning . . . . My Colleagues in this work are the Rev. Messr. Edkins and Burdon of England, and Rev. Schereschewsky, an American Missionary—all of them distinguished for their profi­ ciency in the dialect of the North.” In a later article Martin (1899, 288) wrote that he was asked to take part in the translation by both Scbereschewsky and Burdon. Another member for at least some time was Thomas MacCIatchie (1813-1885) of the Church Missionary Society (see Wylie 1867, 190; Schereschewsky, quoted in American Bible Society Record 1865, 149).

46

Published in 1872 (see Muller 1937, 88). See letter from Schereschewsky of May 17, 1869, quoted in Muller 1937, 83.

4« See Hills 1965, 10.

M a n d a r i n ：D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

147

conq>lained about his lack of time for the continuation of the translation of the Mongolian NT49 because of his involvement in the revision of the Pe­ king Version.50 Edkins—like Burdon and Blodget—was later also engaged in the translation of the Union Version. For Martin, though, activities other than Bible translation were equally or more important, and his part in the translation of the Peking Version must be seen as less crucial.51 He was also the only one of the Peking Ver­ sion translators who would not be asked to participate in the Union Version project. Blodget (1885, 387) considered the Peking Version as “the work of four (a part of it the work of five)," thus referring to the absence of Mar­ tin. 7.3.2. Proceedings of Committee The plan for the translation of the NT was now settled, but the translation of the OT was still only hoped for,52 though Schereschewsky had already started very early to translate Genesis and Psalms.53 For a while the publi­ cation of the Bible bound in one volume with a classical version was also considered,54 but this never materialized.

49 Edkins took a trip to Mongolia in 1866, and consequently started to prepare a trans­ lation of the NT into Mongolian together with Schereschewsky, of which only the Gospel of Matthew was published in 1872. 50 Wylie (1867, 190) even ascribed the translation of the Peking Version mainly to Edldns. 51 Martin finally concluded his translation work on the NT in 1868 before going to America for the summer. He himself only regarded his work on Bible translation as the fourth major literary work he had been engaged in (see letter from Martin to APM of June 10, 1868, quoted in Covell 1978, 144). Most prominently among his other literary works was his translation of Wheaton's Elements o f International Law (Chinese title: Wanguo gongfa 萬闽公法）(published 1864). 52 Martin wrote in a letter of April 12, 1864, to his mission society: “We h(^)e to per­ severe until we have the New Testament, if not tbe whole Bible." 53 Schereschewsky published Genesis with private funds for the first time in 1866. Hykes (1916, 11) and Muller (1937, 70) date the first publication of the Psalms in 1867, but this date cannot be found elsewhere and may be a confusion with Burns's translation of the Psalms of the same year. Nevertheless, it is true that Schereschew­ sky had worked on the translation of the Psalms into Mandarin in this early period (see letter from Schereschewsky, quoted in American Bible Society Record 1865, 149). 54 “The best form would be interleaved with the version in the high style—so diat scholar and rustic might all have the benefit of the light which die one would throu [sic] on the

148

P a rt 1 • C h apter 7

The work of this committee was similar to tiie procedures of the trans­ lation of the Delegates’ Version, except that the drafts were circulated among individual translators rather than mission stations. Each member was assigned a portion of the NT,53 diat he，after having translated it, handed over to the other members of the committee for criticisms and cor­ rections. The corrected drafts were returned to the first translator, who, after considering all the new proposals, made yet another draft that once again was circulated among the other members, who finally met in com­ mittee to discuss the final translation “with the greatest freedom and the aid of the best commentators."56 Chinese scholars also were involved in this process, first as the personal teachers of each individual member, and then as part of the committee, but again the names are not mentioned.57 The first publication of a part of the NT was a tentative edition of the Gospel of John in 1864. Because it belonged to the part that Martin had to translate it has often been considered his translation,38 an inaccuracy since the scheme of the translation would then make every book the translation of a single translator.59 7.3.3. Style of Language and Textual Basis It is revealing to notice the changes from the early edition of the Gospel of John to the later final publication. Besides the alterations which were mere corrections of mistakes in the earlier edition,60 most of the changes moved

obscurities of the other. Many native books are so published" (letter finran Martin to APM of Aug. 8, 1864 [DOHPC, USAJ, underline by Martin). Schereschewsky. for instance, had to translate Matthew, Hebrews, and Revelation (see Muller 1937, 87). 56

See letter from Blodget to ABS of Feb. 21, 1871, quoted in Hills 1965, 64; Wherry 1890. 55. Only Blodget gives the name of his personal teacher as Lang Yunsheng, and another with Si Xiansong (letters from Blodget of Dec. 28, 1861, and Jan. 29, 1863, quoted in Eber 1993, 224).

Si

See Hykes 1916, 10.

59

Martin himself also described the work as a ucombined effort" (letter to ABS of July 30, 1864, quoted in Hills 1965, 58f.).

60

The earlier edition, for instance, simply did not translate v. 1:19a (“and this is the witness of John"), and has an incorrect counting of the verses starting from v. 1:20. This carelessness of production indicates wbat Covell (1978, 145) alludes to when he describes Martin's **impatience with lack of progress" in the translation work.

M a n d a r i n ：D i s c o v e r y o f a U

ngua

Fr a n c a

14 9

in the direction of a higher, more literary style. This can be seen in the Peking Version’s abolition of colloquial exclamation particles,61 the em­ ployment of terms of a more classical style,62 or the reduced use of pro­ nouns and classifiers.63 Mandarin as a written style of language was no longer understood merely as a pure copy of the spoken form of Mandarin, but more and more as a literary style on its own. The influence of the Nanking Version—often considered to be of great importance64—can be seen in some traces of terminology65 or in the more colloquial language in the 1864 edition of John, but hardly in the final edition of the Gospel of John. The use of a great variety of Chinese basis versions, not including the Nanking Version, is attested to in a letter of Blodget to the ABS of Febru­ ary 21, 1871:66 we have had access to all the versions of any value which have been made into the written language from Marshman and Morrison to that by the Russian Archimandrite Gouri [Gury], which is the most recent. 7.3.4. Editions and Publication In 1870, the NT was completed in several partial editions67 and publish lished by the joint owners, BFBS and ABS, as well as by the National Bible Society of Scotland (NBSS). With the publications of Matthew, Mark, and Luke in 1867, the NBSS began actively taking part in the work in China. In 1872, a revised version appeared as a one-volume edition.

61

John 1864 still has

62

See taichu 太初 for qitou 起 頭 （“in tbe beginning," v. 1), yu 與 for he 和 （ “and,” v. 2), or zhong 屮 for litou 裏 頭 （ “in,” v. 4).

63

See vv. 5, 7, 8, 9, et al.

64

See Covell 1978, 143; et al.

65

See above-mentioned (fh. 62) qitou.

66

Quoted in Hills 1%5, 64.

i^) of the Nanking Version in v. 2 (see fn. 31).

Matthew, and in another edition Mark, Luke, John, and Acts in 1865, Romans in 1867, Romans-Philemon in 1869, and Romans-Revelation in 1870 (see Darlow/ Moule 1903, vol. II-l, 21 Iff.; and Hykes 1916, 10). Spillett (1975, 61) gives an 1862 edition of Mark as possibly a work of the committee, which can hardly be the case as the committee was only formed in 1864. Hykes (1916, 10) mentions some parts of Matthew (ch. 5-9) and Romans (ch. 1-8) as a publication of the Peking Ver­ sion Committee in 1863, which in fact is a translation prepared by Edkins alone (see Wylie 1867, 189).

P a rt 1 • C h apter 7

150

As all five committee members had “discovered” tianzhu 天主 as tfie most suitable term for “God，”68 this added yet another facet to die Term Question. The Peking Version turned out to be the Chinese Bible transla­ tion which—after the Delegates’ Version—was most influenced by the Term Question, as five different editions with different terms for “God” deiiKjnstrate.69 After its publication in 1872, the Peking Version was widely accepted: Even the Committee, conscious as they were of the painstaking of their labours, could not have anticipated a success so immediate, so wide, and so permanent as fell to the lot of their work. Almost immediately in one half of the empire the new Mandarin Testament supplanted the Wen-li in the family, the class-room, the street ch冲el and the Church services of the Sabbath, and has held its place securely ever since.70 The Peking Version was the first major attempt to translate the NT into Mandarin,71 and as such it was even con^ared by some to the Authorized Version in England or the Luther Bible in Germany.72 However, it was criticized for being too classical and not concordant enough,73 and for using too many paraphrases instead of direct translation.74 7.3.5. Revision Attempts

• 7

9 1 s

u l n

I

v

s e

l

i

I

h i

h i

0^

o f l - ) . e e n

v

co

1

l

o f l e

l.il s

s

I

l al

|

k y

收

e

l

n t

f t

.I …

i n h

e

g a

l

e p i

'

d

a osc

t

c

s te r r*

/ i

o f v

h o p

i

I ’

2

1S

l i i

r

r

l

B

u w

t h

•

l V

dB1 sr l f a t o

n

a M

p r l r1.

i i l

6 8 6 9

l oll

A revision of the NT was seriously considered in 1888. Burdon and Blodget pleaded in letters to the ABS75 for a revision by the original com-

4 3

( s

w o

4 .

： mpt to put the New Testament into Mandarin was made by Messr. Medhurst and Stronach in Shanghai in 1854 [Nanking Version], but more than ten years later a committee of missionaries in Peking undertook the work in earnest" (Hykes in/4B5 Report 1908, 171, underline by author). 72 Se^Lees 1892, 180; Wherry 1890, 56. 73 See Bailer 1907, 26, 92. 74 See Moule 1885, 379f.; Goodrich 1912, 590. The former gives as one example for the criticized paraphrase the translation of 2 Cor. 4:4, where “god of this world” (6 deoq xou aiwvcx;) is rendered with the Buddhist term mowang 魔王 一“king of demons." 75 See Hills 1965, 75.

M a n d a rin ： D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

151

mittee to avoid the participation of Griffith John, who in the meantime had also published a NT in Mandarin.76 As a senior missionary of the LMS, John was held in great esteem by the British missionaries, but many American missionaries did not think highly of his scholarship and were thus opposed to his cooperation in a revision committee. The BFBS unsuc­ cessfully tried to convince the ABS of the necessity of John’s participation; the ABS itself proposed the revision with either the old committee or other conq)etent scholars (which would have surely—in the eyes of the ABS— excluded John), a proposal which now the BFBS did not consent to. Finally it was decided that a decision on a revision should be made at the upcom­ ing general conference in 1890.77 Eventually Schereschewsky revised the NT, as part of a one-volume edition with his Mandarin OT and a reference Bible, and had it published by the ABS in 1908.78 7.4. Schereschewsky's Mandarin Old Testament Translation and Revisions When Schereschewsky was asked to continue the efforts of the Peking Ver­ sion committee by translating the OT single-handedly, he was only too willing to consent. He had not only already started with the translation of parts of the OT,79 but he also saw himself as fit for this work like no other. Having visited rabbinical schools until the age of 19,80 he himself said of his linguistic abilities: Without priding myself upon the fact, or claiming any special merit from it, and without the least idea of self-laudation, I may be allowed to state that my knowledge of the Hebrew qualifies me, perhaps more than any other missionary now in China, to undertake such a work [the translation of the OT]. Being a Jew by birth, and having enjoyed in ear­ lier years a good Jewish education, I know Hebrew better than any other

77 7i 79

See ch. 8.2. See Hills 1965, 76. See ch. 7.4.3. See ch. 7.3.2.

ao Schereschewsky was born into a Jewish family in Tauragi in Lithuania. His parents died when be was still a child, and his relatives intended for him to become a rabbi. After he left for studies in Germany, though, he became a Christian by studying the Hebrew NT. In 1854, he emigrated to the United States, where be entered Western Theological Seminary in Pittsburgh in the following year. For more details on his biography, see Muller 1937, and the pending biography by Eber.

152

P a rt 1 • C hapter 7

language. As to my knowledge of the Chinese, I hope I possess the av­ erage knowledge of it of most missionaries.*1 Martin (1899, 288), one of his colleagues in translating the Peking Version, disagreed with Schereschewsky's modest estimation of his Chinese: [Schereschewsky] had made himself a Chinese by adoption and by suc­ cessful study. No man of that day equaled him in idiomatic command of the spoken Mandarin. 7.4.1. Translation Work The ABS supported Schereschewsky and a Chinese secretary82 for the work on the OT with unused funds held by Schereschewsky's mission society, the American Episcopal Church Mission,83 so tiiat he could use his entire time and energy for the translation project. He took the complete devotion to this task so literally that he hardly ever wrote reports to his mission so­ ciety or the ABS for fear of being interrupted. For the same reason, the growth of his congregation during his 12 years in Peking was limited to “one family and a lad.”84 The work on the first draft of the OT was fin­ ished in 1873. The final revision was done by Schereschewsky himself and possibly to some degree by Blodget.85 According to Schereschewsky himself,86 in dogmatical questions he did not use modem criticism but generally followed the orthodox interpreta­ tion, which he in most cases found in the English Authorized Version.幻 He described his greatest authority, though, as the Hebrew text, followed in much less importance by the Greek Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the translations of de Wette and Lowth.88 In his later classical translation, how­

82

Quoted in American Bible Society Record 1865, 149. The Chinese secretary who worked with Schereschewsky in the late 1870s and early 1880s was possibly surnamed Liu (see Muller 1937, 139).

83

See Hills 1965, 60f. See Muller 1937, 84fT.

a5 See Hills 1965, 66f. 86

See letter to American Episcopal Church Mission of July 21, 1865, quoted in Ameri­ can Bible Society Record 1866, 33f” 50f.

87

In the subsequent revision of the NT, he—according to this principle—has no read­ ing in John 1 that interprets with modem Greek editions, but all with the Textus Re­ ceptus, which formed the basis for the Authorized Version. The first edition of M.W.L. de Wette’s German translation of the OT appeared in tbe years 1809-1914 (Freiburg: Siebeck), later editions in 1831，1838, and 1858. Lowth, see ch. 2, fh. 73.

SS

M a n d a rin ： D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

153

ever, he claimed to be much closer to the Hebrew text than in the Manda­ rin translation.89 7.4.2. Publication and Public Reception In 1872, the book of Genesis was published by the ABS,90 and two years later, at the end of 1874,91 the whole OT appeared. For the first time in 1878, Schereschewsky’s OT was issued as one version with the Peking Version’s NT, published as a combined effort by the ABS and BFBS. Al­ though the OT was owned by the ABS, the BFBS was allowed to print from this edition for their own use from 1878 on.92 The style of the Testa­ ments did not harmonize exactly, Schereschewsky*s OT being of a some­ what higher style of Mandarin than the Peking Version.93 Still, the publica­ tion was almost unanimously highly praised and welcomed. Schereschewsky is possibly evaluated more highly than almost anyone else in the history of Chinese Bible translation, perhaps higher even than Morrison. His great friend and supporter John Hykes of the ABS called him “The Prince of Bible translators,”94 and even in a BFBS publication Schereschewsky is called “one of the world’s greatest Bible translators."95 This was mainly due to his uncommon abilities and remarkable achieve­ ments, but there were also other reasons for this kind of admiration. Schereschewsky, although he gained U.S. citizenship in 1875, never took the typical American stand in the Term Question. He had already sup­ ported the use of tianzhu for “God” as a member of the Peking Version committee, and he continued to use this term in his OT as well, but he also

w See letter from Schereschewsky to ABS of May 26, 1892. 90 The first edition of 1866 was published with private funds (see fh. 53). 91 Some coniiision exists about the publishii^ date of the OT because of two dates given in this first edition. The Chinese title is dated 1874, the year the printed edi­ tions left the press, whereas a label pasted inside the cover bears the date 1875 (see Spillett 1975, 67). 92 See Hills 1965, 69; letter from Bondfield to BFBS of 1908 (without exact date). 93 The later translator of the Mandarin Union Version, Owen (1907, 74), distinguished the different styles as “High Mandarin” (Schereschewsky) and MNorthern Manda­ rin" (Peking Version). 94 See letter from Hykes to ABS of July 28, 1908. 95 See Hudspeth 1952, 12.

154

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 7

permitted his version to be printed widi other terms.96 This represented a liberal view on the subject that was rarely seen during these days of heated discussion, but highly welcomed by many. Another fact that may have influenced die high estimation of Schereschewsky’s work was a sunstroke in 1881 that con^letely paralyzed him for the rest of his life; nonetheless, he continued with the translation and revision of the Chinese Bible. He spent 32 years of his life solely on Bible translation, more than anyone else in the course of Chinese Bible transla­ tion. This perseverance in the face of great hardship gave his fellow mis­ sionaries and later historians the highest respect for his work. Some single voices commented on a loss of dignity in the translation of the Psalms into Mandarin97 or dared to note that there still was work needed to “make it a perfect work.”98 Only Sheffield, the later translator of the classical Union Version, complained quite directly about a lack of faith­ fulness in the translation, by saying that Schereschewsky*s “work has the serious defect of giving an interpretation in place of a translation." But even in the same sentence Sheffield continued by calling Schereschewsky a “distinguished translator."99 7.4.3. Revision Work on Old Testament and Peking Version Even before his illness in 1881 and his farewell from China in 1882, Schereschewsky had looked forward to being assigned to a revision of his O T.100 But after his paralysis, neither his own mission society nor the ABS had enough confidence in his abilities to support him or allow him to return to China any earlier than 1895,101 even though he had applied for that as 96 Although he had a fairly strong view against the use of shangdi: "I emphatically declare that Shangti [shangdi] is positively wrong" (quoted in American Bible Soci­ ety Record 1866, 33). 97 See Wylie in Chinese Recorder 1875, 238. 98 See Muirhead 1890, 36. 99 See letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Jan. 12, 1908. 100 See Hills 1965, 79. 101 Schereschewsky eventually returned with funds raised by appeals that he himself published in church magazines (see Hills 1965, 81). With one of these he caused a great deal of excitement. He stated in the Church Standard of April 6, 1895, that “five different versions of the Bible in literary Chinese【apparently the translations by probably Morrison/Milne, Marshman/Lassar, Medhurst/Gfltzlaff/Bridgman, and Bridgman/Culbertson, as well as the Delegates ’ Version, ... have not been made di­ rectly from the originals, but are mainly translations of the English Bible" (quoted in letter from Hykes to ABS of Sep. 10, 1895). Schereschewsky clearly stated this to

M a n d a rin ： D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

155

early as 1887.102 In 1906, the year of Schereschewsky*s death, the ABS regretfully stated that if the Board had thought him capable of a fraction of the work he afterwards accomplished, they would undoubtedly have accepted his serv­ ices, which, for reasons which are apparent, they declined with a kindli­ ness and delicacy which characterized the then Secretary, Dr. Gilman.103 Because no one would pay for a Chinese helper applied for by Schere­ schewsky, he started the revision work in 1887 himself, romanizing the Chinese characters and typing them with one finger.104 He had finished the revision of the OT as well as apparently the Peking Version NT105 by the next year. Schereschewsky continued to struggle for recognition of his work from the ABS after his return to China in 1895, knowing that he himself could not finance the publication of his Bible translations and that they would not find any acceptance among the missionaries if not sanctioned by at least one of the Bible societies.106 Fortunately, the agent of the ABS in China, John Hykes, was a close friend and great admirer of Schereschewsky’s work, so that through his influence the ABS eventually consented to sup­ port Schereschewsky’s translations. In October of 1896, the ABS printed

elevate the significance of his own translation. While he may have understood the Hebrew text of the OT better than former translators, there is not much doubt that most of the earlier translators also relied largely on the original texts. See Muller 1937, 203. Quoted in ABS Report 1907, 153. Most historians refer to the **two-finger-Bible," a description which Muller (1937, 251) dispels as false, quoting several sources that prove that Schereschewsky only used one finger instead of two. 105

See letter from Hykes to ABS of July 28, 1908: “He then told me that he had done s o 【revised the NT] in the United States and he showed me the manuscript which was in precisely the same form as the manuscript of his Old Testament, except it was on smaller paper." Also, Schereschewsky had asked the ABS as early as 1887 to send him a Hebrew and a Lithuanian NT (see Hills 1965, 80). A letter from Hykes to the ABS of Aug. 4, 1899, underlines the importance of the siqjport of the Bible society: **Notwithstanding the many excellencies of his version, and the great reputation he has as a great Chinese scholar and translator, his work has follen rather flat with the missionary body in general because it does not have the endorsement of one of the great Bible Societies. ... I have no hesitation in saying, that unless it is taken up by us, the immense labor he has spent upon it under his ter­ rible physical disabilities, will be practically wasted- It will be used by his own church in and about Shanghai and that will be all."

156

Part 1 • C h apter 7

his revision of the NT,107 with Genesis and Job appearing in 1897, Proverbs in 1898, and the whole Bible with the Peking Version NT and the re­ vised OT in 1899. Schereschewsky claimed as the main purpose of the revision a change in particles, to achieve “greater clearness and smoothness."108 After this publication he did not stop revising but continued widi the aim of unifying the text with the classical version he had published by that time109 and making references for the complete Bible. He was able to finish this last task before his death in 1906. This last work also included the revision of the Peking Version. The fact that he had worked on a revision of this NT without having asked for permission firom the BFBS and ABS as the owners of the Peking Version caused some irritation, especially on the side of the BFBS, whose China agent, Bondfield, went so far as to demand the destruction of the stereos.110 Finally, after Bondfield recognized most of the changes as improvements, he consented that unauthorized though they are it does not seem right to withhold these suggestive changes from those who use the version, or from the transla­ tors of the Union Version who may find them helpful.1" The Bible was printed in 1908 as the first reference Bible in Chinese. Other editions of the revised OT appeared in 1912 and 1913 in a one-volume edi­ tion with the Union Version NT. The most prominent of the changes that Schereschewsky made in his Mandarin revision was the consistent translation of “Yahweh” (YHVH) with zhu 主 instead of the transliteration yehehua 耶 和 華 （ “Jehovah”). In his earlier edition, Schereschewsky had already used zhu 批 well, but had retained yehehua where it appeared together with “God” as in yehehua tianzhu 耶 和 華 天 主 一 “Jehovah God” (Gen. 2:4) or with “Lord” as in zhu yehehua 主 耶 和 華 一“Lord Jehovah” (Gen. 15:2).112 In the revised edition 107 The ABS first rejected the support in 1887 on the grounds of “the rule of the Society to wait for the completion of a work before finally adopting it” (quoted in Hills 1965, 80), a decision absolutely contrary to their former policies in China and even with Schereschewsky's own translation work on the OT, merely displaying their unwillingness to support him. 108 See letter from Hykes to ABS of July 9, 1896. 109 See ch. 8.4.2. 110 See letter from Hykes to ABSof July 28, 1908. 1.1 See letter from Bondfield td BFBS of 1908. 1.2 Cf. Eber 1993, 226.

M a n d a rin ： D i s c o v e r y o f a L in g u a F r a n c a

157

he omitted yehehua even in these passages."3 The Bible societies and espe­ cially the BFBS, however, were alraid that this would not be approved of by some missionaries and cause a new controversy in the midst of the translation of the Union Version, so they decided to switch back to Schere­ schewsky *s old system.114 From today’s viewpoint, though, Schereschew­ sky proves to have been very farsighted with his translation of “Yahweh,” which most of the modem Chinese translations render similarly.115 In the NT, the revised passages were mostly concerning the translitera­ tions of proper names. The revised transliterations of Schereschewsky were—according to the ABS Report of 1918 (p. 248)—slightly modified and adopted by the Bible societies as a model for transliterations of the Union Version. This eventually did not prove to be the case because the (rather inconsistent) transliteration system in use was preferred in most cases. Schereschewsky tried to reform the Chinese system of transliterations of biblical proper names, which had been mainly based on the English pro­ nunciation, towards a system based on the original Greek or Hebrew pro­ nunciation. In the first chapter of the Gospel of John this can be seen, for example, in nuxiya 彌西亞 for M eoaiaq (verse 41), the Greek translitera­ tion of the Aramaic term, replacing misaiya 彌 赛 亞 that was formed ac­ cording to the [ai]-sound of the English “Messiah.” The second aim of his reform was to avoid negative connotations of transliterations. Therefore, for example, he substituted jialili 迦 利 利 （ “Galilee,” verse 43) for jialili 加 利 利 ，which had the connotation of “to add profit.” Only some textual changes towards a closer faithfulness to the original can be seen in the revised edition. In John 1 they included roushen 肉 身 一 “fleshly body"—for “flesh” (verse 14) instead of renshen 人身 一“human body," or toushang 頭上 一 “on top of the head”一was replaced with shenshang 身上 一 “on top (of the body)"—for “upon” (verse 32). The termi­ nological changes were for the greatest part already used in early editions ，

113 Both yehehua tianzhu and zfiu yehehua were changed to zhu tianzhu .:K天 1： . 114 See letters of Hykes to the ABS of July 28, 1908, and of Bondfield to the BFBS of 1908. 115 LQ (published 1970) reads yongheng zhu 永 Dangdai shengjing (published 1979) zhu ll, and Today's Chinese Version (published 1980) shangzhu 上 J i for "Yahweh," only retaining tbe transliteration yehehua in places were the name of God is explicitly explained, such as Ex. 6:3. The Union Version has yehehua con­ sistently as tbe translation of “Yahweh,” but is expected to change this in the forth­ coming revision (see Liang 1991, 1036).

158

Part 1 • C hapter 7

of the Mandarin Union Version NT (1900 and 1907 editions) or employed in later editions,116 but not so the revised transliterations. 7.4.4. Chinese Assistants Schereschewsky naturally did not finish his translations single-handedly. When he came back to China in 1895, he employed two Chinese scholars to help him put his romanized manuscript into Chinese characters. After a short time they were replaced by a Chinese woman, Wei Jianmin (1848 ? 1932), who had been educated in an Anglican school and was thus able to understand English and to read his manuscript.117 In 1897, Schereschewsky moved to Tokyo, where the ABS was printing his Bible, and took a Chi­ nese secretary, Jin Shihe, with him at the expense of the ABS. Jin only stayed for a few months, whereas Ye Shanrong, his successor, played a much greater role in the course of Schereschewsky's Bible translations. Schereschewsky often complained about the “obstinate” character of Ye.1,8 He had originally planned to make the Mandarin and the classical transla­ tion during the first revision “exactly alike,” but he “could not carry out this idea with Mr. Yeh [Ye], as it seemed to have a confusing effect upon him. So I gave it up temporarily.”119 Successors for Ye were found in You Baoseng and Zhang Jiezhi.120 In a letter of July 3, 1903, (to the ABS) Hykes described what contributed to this great fluctuation: 【 Schereschewsky’s】tongue is so thick that it is difficult for persons who are not accustomed to him to understand what he says. He is very sensi­ tive over this, and it takes a long time for a Chinese to become suffi­ ciently familiar with the peculiarities of his speech to work with him. Finally Schereschewsky found in Lian Yinghuang, a graduate of the Pres­ byterian college at Dengzhou,121 somebody whom he could work with. Lian stayed with Schereschewsky from 1902 on, and completed the work that was not finished after Schereschewsky’s death in 1906. Hykes wrote about Lian:

116 Cf. letter from Hykes to ABS of July 28, 1908. 1,7 See Muller 1937, 223f. "• See ibid., 233. 1,9 Quoted in a letter from Hykes to ABS of Aug. 29, 1902. 120 See Muller 1937, 240. 121 See ch. 10, fn. 13.

M a n d a rin

：D i s c o v e r y o f a L

in g u a

Fr a n c a

159

He is thoroughly familiar with the Bible (so the Bishop says), a pleasant and efficient man to work with and simply invaluable to the Bishop and to me. It is very difficult to get men who are qualified to do such work as he is doing.122 addition to Lian, Schereschewsky also hired a Japanese writer by the n e o f Bun.

Illu s tr a tio n 4

：

Schereschewsky with his Chinese assistant Lian (left) and his Japanese assistant Bun in a photograph o f 1902 (in ABS Report 1903, frontispiece).

7.5. Sum m ary Through the example o f the Shengyu, the missionaries had known of M an­ darin as a widely understood language from the earliest time on. N ever­ theless, they did not employ it in their Bible translations because they did not consider it as stylistically grave enough, especially in times when an influence on the literati was hoped for. 122 L etter from Hykes to ABS o f Feb. 27, 1905.

160

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 7

Medhurst and Bridgman, who both had rejected Mandarin as an option for the style of language of the Delegates’ Version, later worked on trans­ lations into that style as additions to their versions in the higher style. Medhurst, the only one who succeeded, saw this new translation as a wel­ come chance to finally publish a version according to the translation prin­ ciples he believed in. However, even though it was supported by the BFBS and printed in large numbers, this version was of relatively small success because it was rather carelessly produced. The Chinese used in Medhurst's version was strongly shaped by spoken Mandarin. The missionaries’ unawareness of Mandarin as a language actually understood by a majority of the Chinese people was demonstrated by the excitement over the new chances of a Mandarin translation of the Bible after missionaries settled in Mandarin-speaking Peking. The first missionaries in Peking almost immediately formed a committee to translate the NT into Mandarin. Even though this was an international and interdenominational committee which had a similar working basis as the Delegates’ Version committee, it resulted—unlike the latter version—in successful translation work. It differed from the Delegates’ Version committee in the fact that it was not elected but formed itself, did not have a dominating leader, and all translators agreed on one of the terms for “G o d , thus apparently making success much more likely. Unlike the Nanking Version, the committee of the Peking Version had the aim of not simply transferring spoken Mandarin into a written form but of using a higher, more literary style of Mandarin. After Morrison as the first greatly esteemed translator, Medhurst proved to be the dominant personality of the second generation of Bible translators, and this was only en^>hasized by the fact that it was also he who published the first Mandarin translation. The outstanding personality of the third generation was Schereschewsky. His participation in the Peking Version committee and translation of the OT into Mandarin was widely praised. If his attempts to revise both the New and Old Testaments had not coincided with the time of the Union Version translation and naturally come into a situation of competition with it, he very likely might have become the most influential of all Chinese Bible translators. As it was, the Bible societies only very hesitantly, if at all, supported Schereschewsky^ work, making it almost impossible for it to gain wide acceptance. The position of the Bible societies was once again shown to be of ultimate importance, here even more important than the great respect which was paid to Schereschewsky and his work.

8. LOWER CLASSICAL: TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE INTO A LOWER FORM OF THE LITERARY LANGUAGE

Though the Peking Version was widely circulated in the Mandarin-speaking north of China, in the south where Mandarin was not as widely understood a strong feeling grew towards another form of language that would be be­ tween the literary language of the Delegates’ Version and Mandarin, close to what Milne had described ass one of Morrison’s considerations.1 At the general mission conference in 1877, die topic was discussed for the first time publicly.2 One of the strongest advocates for such a transla­ tion was Griffith John (1831-1912) of the LMS station from Hankou (today part of Wuhan/Hubei), who was to publish a translation of the NT into the lower form of classical Chinese in 1885. He pictured a form of “Easy Wenli"3 that would be almost as easily understandable as Mandarin, with the advantage of being a language of an even more universal character and at the same time acceptable to scholarly tastes.4 Other voices for the translation into tthis style of language suggested that Chinese newspapers, which See ch. 2.2.1. The invitation to the conference still called for a standard classic version (DuBose in Chinese Recorder 1877, 533). The term "W enli"(文理）was **an English word derived from Chinese roots but never used by the Chinese" (Yuen 1976, 25). The original meaning is “principles of literature (or: writing)," but by the missionaries of the last century it was coined to stand for classical Chinese. For sinologues outside the missionary circle, this term was not acceptable ( '• • what the missionaries persist in calling wAt " , meaning thereby the book language as 叩posed to the colloquial"—Giles 1881/82, 151). The terms "High Wenli" (shen wenli 深文理）for a high form of classical Chinese, and ■Easy Wenli” (qian wenli 淺文理）for a lower form of classical Chinese, were cen­ tral terms in the discussion for translations into these styles until 1907, when it was decided to unify Bible translation efforts into just one form of classical Chinese (see ch. 12.1). This paper will usually refer to “classical” instead of “Wenli” and **lower classical" instead of “Easy Wenli," with the exception of titles of versions that bear this term (i.e., “Easy Wenli Union Version” or “High Wenli Union Version''). See Records 1877, 221f.

162

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 8

employed the lower classical, “must know the style best fitted to reach the people,” and should therefore be taken as models.5 Yet others suggested governmental proclamations written in this style as models, as well as (once again) the novels of the Ming and Qing dynasties,6 or the commen­ taries of the canonical books by Zhu Xi.7 The ideas of what kind of language to eventually employ were as di­ verse as the different kinds of models quoted, and naturally this diversity of opinions gave way to considerable conflict. Burdon (1890, 102), who was to publish a NT translation in lower classical witfi Blodget in 1889, de­ scribed it “as practically the same thing as the Mandarin, with the excep­ tion of the pronouns and particles.” This view was not only rejected by John, but also by Schereschewsky, who had a more complex idea of what Easy Wenli was supposed to be like. In a paper for the 1890 general con­ ference, he wrote that the immediate want is a Wen-li version in the modern style; in a style which, whilst not unacceptable to scholars, could be read and understood by all who are not illiterate; a style which should employ words in their primary sense and call a spade a spade; which should not strive after classicalities, and that should avoid ready-made phrases and expressions culled from poetical and rhetorical compositions; in short, a style em­ ployed by the Chinese themselves in their graver works and more seri­ ous transactions.8 The aims of the missionaries proposing or undertaking translations into lower classical were similar to those at the introduction of the Mandarin Bible years before. Despite the large numbers of Mandarin Bibles circu­ lated in China, failing acceptance in the south seemed to destroy its feasi­ bility as a union Bible for China. The only possible way to secure a union version was thought to be a translation into lower classical. The Bible societies pursued the possibilities of procuring such a version. The BFBS started to consider such a project in 1880. According to Wright, its editorial superintendent, it intended “that the version made should be the work of a representative committee" and that it was “not desirable that it should become the sole property of one Society.”9 After the publication of

5

Douglas in Records 1877, 223.

6

See ch. 1, fh. 4.

7

See Williamson in Records 1877, 225; cf. ch. 2.2.1.

'

Quoted in Records 1890, 41-44.

9

Wright in Chinese Recorder 1891, 178.

E a sy W en li

163

GrifHdi John’s lower classical translation by the NBSS in 1885 (see ch. 8.1), the BFBS stopped considering this plan. In the early 1880s, the ABS and its associated missionaries were still contemplating a revision of the version by Bridgman/Culbertson.10 In 1881, Gulick, the agent of the ABS in China," wrote 压 letter to his society12 stating that such a revision would not fulfill the needs of the mission, which were more towards a lower classical version. Two years later, in 1883, the ABS agreed to the possible publication of a few Gospels in lower classical.13 8.1. Griffith John’s Translation into Lower Classical Griffith John had come to Shanghai in 1855, and moved to Hankou in 1861, where he resided until he moved back to Britain in 1907. John was known as a gifted preacher and author of many tracts, but also as a Bible translator. In his role as a Bible translator he was admired by some— mostly British—and strongly criticized by others—mostly A Of great relevance to John’s work was his close co to tiie NBSS, which not only published all of his Bible translations, but whose agent in Hankou, John Archibald,14 became the mentor and supporter of John’s undertakings in Bible translation.15 In 1883, John decided with Archibald’s support to translate the Gospel of Mark into lower classical,16 which the NBSS published in the next year along with the Gospel of John. According to John himself (1886, 145), he only continued with the transla­ tion because, after the publication of these two parts of the NT, he received strong encouragement from other missionaries, including many Americans. His complete Gospels were published in 1884, and, although he had origi-

10 Seech. 4.3.1. 11 For the agents of the Bible societies in China, see appendix. 12 Of Apr. 6, quoted in Hills 1965, 83. 13 See letter from ABS to Gulick of Feb. 24, 1883, quoted in Hills 1965. 14 No birth and death dates are found in the NBSS archives. 15 The first agent of the NBSS, A. Williamson (1829-1900), was also closely con­ nected with John, for he had come out to China for the first time in 1855 as an LMS missionary on the same boat with G. John. J. Archibald began his work as the head of the ceittral agency of the NBSS in Hankou in 1877, where he established the soci­ ety's printing press in 18SS. 16 See Thompson 1906, 434f.; John in Chinese Recorder 1891, 230.

164

Pa rt 1 • C hapter 8

nally not expected to go beyond that widi his translation,17 the complete NT appeared in 1885. After its publication, J(4in continually pointed out diat he had felt him­ self to have been put into the position of becoming a Bible translator.18 No one else had taken up the work after the 1877 general conference, aldiough there had been much agreement about the necessity of a translation into lower classical. He had urged Schereschewsky in 1881 to undertake the work, and he had consented but had been forced to leave China.19 The translation efforts of Burdon and Blodget were only started as a response to John's translation activities,20 and had he known they were even contemplating the bringing out of such a version it is not at all likely that I should have attempted the task; and it is certain that if either of them had actually taken it in hand, I should not have given the work a thought.21 (italics by John) This statement seems somewhat idealistic, considering John's low opinion of Burdon/Blodget’s translation.22 However, on the odier hand, his low opinion may very well have been influenced by the fact that the position of his version became considerably weaker widi the publication of Burdon/Blodgefs version. While John’s translation had originally been consid­ ered by several missionaries as a potential union version in lower classi­ cal,23 only single voices still supported it as such after Burdon/Blodget’s publication,24 and several others called for a revision of both done by a committee.23 See John 1885, 386. See John 1885; 1886. See ch. 7.4.2. 20

See ch. 8.3. John 1886, 146.

22

See ch. 10.5.1.1. See Moule 1885; 1886; Noyes in Chinese Recorder 1885, 262; DuBose 1885. Archi­ bald of the NBSS published a letter (in Chinese Recorder 1885, 348) where he urged that further work on John’s translation to make it a common version should be Htaken in hand without delay." Even in circles outside of China, as in tbe Missionary Review o f the World 1888 (p. 65), it was staled that it is **coQfideatly expected that it [John's translation] will be adopted as a basis of a union version for all China."

24

See Foster 1886.

23

See Lowry 1885; Mateer 1886; Proposition from Missionaries in Peking and Tien­ tsin, in Ounese Recorder 1886, 203; several anonymous letters in Chinese Recorder 1886. 203ff.

Ea sy W enli

165

8.1.1. Prind|rfes of Translation Regarding his principles of translation, John (1885, 382) listed seven points: 1. Aim at making the version an exact image of the original. 2. Use those words, and only those words, which shall clearly egress all the meaning of the original. 3. In so far as it is possible, use those words which best correspond with those of the original. 4. Where a translation ad verbum would result in an obscuration or a perversion of the author’s meaning, abandon a literal version, and translate ad sensum. 5. In doubtful passages, a version ad sensum is to be preferred to a lit­ eral translation. 6. Where particular words are wanting in Chinese, have recourse to circumlocution, if by so doing the sense can be made clear. 7. In all cases consult the genius of the language in which the version is made, and let its characteristic qualities rule as far as faithfulness to the truth, and exactness of interpretation will permit. (Italics by John.) John knew that his non-literal principles of translation would draw criti­ cism, so he immediately defended them. According to him, a version that would be literal in every instance would be of no value to either the heathen or the Christian. To the one it would be a mere laughing stock, and to the other a serious stumblingstone.26 Because of the different characteristics of Greek and Chinese, ambiguous passages in the Greek original could, according to John, hardly ever be transferred as such into Chinese, nor could every particle be translated.27 His translation eventually was criticized for being partly a paraphrase,28 but even more for the suspicion that John had simply transferred the text of the Peking Version into lower classical without acknowledgment.29 John sternly rejected this allegation by stating that he had freely used the Peking Version as well as the Delegates’ Version and the translation by Bridgman/

26 John 1885, 381. J7 See John 1885. M See Fitch 1885a; 1885b. 29 See Wherry, quoted in Hills 1965, 86.

166

Pa rt 1 • C h apter 8

Culbertson,30 but that he translated from the Greek, “consulting die English versions and the commentaries as I went along."31 The first chapter of the Gospel of John contains passages which prove tfiat G. John did not only use the Peking Version. Verse 9 is ambiguous in Greek, with possible meanings of “there was the true light which, coming into the world, enlightens every man” or “there was a true light which en­ lightens every man coming into the world.”32 The translators of the Peking Version re n d e re d 那 光 是 眞 光 ，普 照 凡 生 在 世 上 的 人 一 “that light was the true light, enlightening every person born in the w o rld , thus deciding for the second option; John, on the other hand, translated 此 光 乃 眞 光 ， 臨 世 照 衆 者 也 一 “this light was the true light, descending on the world (and) enlightening the multitudes,” a translation according to the first pos­ sibility. In this he relied on the interpretation of the Delegates’ Version and Bridgman/Culbertson's version.13 Also the term tianfu 天 父 一“heavenly father”一for 7tatp6 (；(“father”） in verse 14, shows that John used ttie reading of the Delegates' Version and Bridgman/Culbertson's translation, rather than that of the Peking Version which had fu 父 一“father.” This last example also shows the “ad sensum” translation that John described in his principles of translation. Tianfu is not a literal translation, but it distin­ guishes **(God the) Father” firom a human “father,” which in the English Bible translations is achieved by capitalization. John, according to his own words, “consulted the genius of the language” in this case, rather than sticking to a literal translation. In verse 9, ciguang 此 光 一“this light"—is given as the subject of the sentence (as it is in Peking Version and Delegates’ Version), whereas the Greek text only contains r(v—**it (was).” G. John wanted to avoid the pos­ sibility of referring to the subject of the former sentence (verse 8), yuehan 約翰 一“John,” instead of the object, ciguang 此光 一“this light.” This is an example of the avoidance of ambiguities as described in John’s princi30 Pointing to the translation by Burdon/Blodget, which was acknowlegedly done from the Peking Version, John added beU Gibson (1849-1919) of the English Presbyte­ rian Mission, member of die executive committees for Easy and High Wenli, was elected. Gibson, \A )0 had lived in Shantou since 1874, became the chairman of the Easy Wenli translation committee ^iter Blodget’s resignation in 1904. He also worked on a translation of the Bible into the dialect of Chaozhou (Guangdong) between 1888 and 1917.61 10.5.1.2. Faber: Term Question, Basis Text, and Different Ideas of Translation Ernst Faber, who had been in China since 1865, was—along with John— the most courted man of the whole translation scheme. He was not only the chairman of the High Wenli and member of the Mandarin executive com­ mittees, but also elected member of the Easy and High Wenli translation committees and general editor for all three versions. But he resigned firom all of the above positions and finally only accepted a position as “corre­ sponding member of the Board of Revisers," which had been offered to him and Schereschewsky.62 The reasons for his great popularity in the Un­ ion Version project can be traced to two sources. His renowned scholar­ ship—he was “by far the most voluminous author in Chinese" of any of the Protestant missionaries of the last century63—made him highly esteemed in the eyes of his fellow missionaries, regardless of nationality.64 His German nationality also gave him an additional benefit. According to the (written or unwritten) regulations for forming the committees, Germans had to partici­ pate in the two classical translation committees. Among the small number

61 In an obituary by Bondfield, this version is praised as "(me of tbe ablest renderings of die original Greek that we have in any form of tbe Chinese forms of q»ech” (China Mission Yea 1919, 335). a

See Chinese

der 1892, 28, 81.

a

See MacGillivray 1907, 495, 499f. After Faber had developed a throat disease in the first years of his ministry, be spent most of his energies in literary work (see Kranz 1901, 1).

64 Blodget in a letter to the ABCFM (of Sept. 3, 1891) referred to Faber as “an emi­ nent German Scholar," and John (in a letter to the LMS of July 8, 1890) as “one of ' our foremost men," adding that he (John) would not "care to enter upon the work [on the Union Version] without Dr. Faber as a colleague" (letter to LMS of Oct. 11, 1890).

210

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

of German missionaries in that period who were qualified to take iq> the work, no one could even begin to compare with Faber.65 His reasons for resigning from all his posts were the unresolved Term Question and his disagreement about the basis text,66 whereas the former seems to have been the more important objection.67 The whole discussion of the Term Question had been largely avoided during the general confer­ ence,68 as this could have disturbed a harmony that was essential for a deci­ sion on a project like that of the Union Version. Rule 8 of the adopted rules for translation, where the Bible Societies were given the right **to publish such editions as it may choose, and with such terms for God, Spirit and baptize, as may be called f o r , 69 was a mere strategy to avoid conflict. Nevertheless, the question was not forgotten, and it was privately hoped ttiat the Term Question could be solved in the course of the translation work, a hope which was to find an answer in the “Compromise Terms".70 Faber himself favored shangdi 上帝 for “God” and shen 神 for “Spirit,” but most strongly criticized the division in the Protestant mission in this question that made up **zehn verschiedene Gruppen von Missionsliteratur, resp. zehnerlei Kirchenchinesisch.w For the sake of the unification of the missionary body and to end the conflict with the Catholic church, Faber had once again suggested the use of (the Catholic term) tianzHu 天 主 .7I This did not And wide support and eventually led to the resignation of Fa­ ber, who regarded the division as a sin which he could not sanction by partaking in the Union Version project.72 Only four of the 446 participants at the 1890 general conference were German, and altogether appr. 2% of the missionaries in 1890 were continental (including Scandi­ navian, German, etc.; see appendix in Records 1890). "Von der BibelQbersetzung habe ich micb zuruckgezogen, da mir das Untemehmen zunScbst eine Unmdglichkeit erscbeint. Die Textfirage und die Terms sind vorher zu erledigen. Vielleicht gelingt es in einigen Jahren" (letter fTom Faber to General Evangelical Protestant Missionary Society of Nov. 2, 1892, quoted in Zeitschrift fUr Missionskunde und Religionswissenschc^t 1893, 56). See Chinese Recorder 1892, 81. Cf. letter from GenShr to Rhenish Missionary Soci­ ety of Dec. 11, 1891. Discussions about the Term Question are not mentioned in any of the records of the general mission conferences of 1877, 1890, and 1907. 69

See ch. 10.2.

70

See ch. 4.1.3. See letter from Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 21. 1891. See report of Faber for the first quarter of 1893, quoted in Zeitschrift fUr Missionskunde und Religionswissenscturfl 1894, 56; cf. Chinese Recorder 1892, 81.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

211

The great load of literary work already on hand also made it impossible for him to join this project，73 and additionally, Faber’s ideas about transla­ tion would have hardly made it possible for him to work in Union Version translation committees. He neither believed in the idea of literal translation, nor did he ever translate himself, but always through the **medium" of Chinese assistants.74 An article that he wrote in 1882 about literal mission work in China illustrates his theory: Man darf sich nicht wundern, wenn zunachst der Missionar vielfach gar nicht verstanden und mifiverstanden wird. WIeting the Easy Wenli translation committee, which finally consisted of Burdon, Blodget, Gibson, Graves, and GenShr. 10.5.2. The High Wenli Committee Of the first five members of the High Wenli committee elected by October 1890, only two were actually gong to serve as translators. The members were John Chalmers, George Evans Moule, Ernst Faber, John Wherry, and Caleb Cook Baldwin. John Chalmers (1825-1899) of the LMS had been in Hongkong and Canton since 1852. His main efforts were channeled into literary work, and in 1890 he published a translation of a collection of the Psalms (1-19, 23).

76 Seefn. 20. 77 See Chinese Recorder 1892, 81. 78 Letter from Foster to LMS of Feb. 16, 1891. 79 See below. 80 See letter from GenShr to Rhenish Missionary Society of Oct. 20, 1891. Unfortu­ nately, the letter is incomplete and ends with the words: “Ich sagte oben, dieser Brief [of the executive committee] habe mich nicht wenig ins Gediinge gebrachl, wanim, das wird Dinen aus Nachfolgendem klar werden. Vor einem Jahr ungefihr . .. • " The sentence where GenShr explains why he accepted the post as a translator remains incomplete.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

213

This experimental translation was—like Burns’s Psalm translation81—done in metrical form, and according to its preface, styled after songs from the Chuci 楚辭 Chalmers acted as the chairman of the High Wenli committee until he died. When he announced his election to the LMS and asked for its permis­ sion to act on the committee, he wrote: I am going to accept the appointment conditionally of course upon my So­ ciety allowing it. My present belief is that God has given me work in the way of translation and that He will enable me to do it. The description of the work to be done is not quite fair but it is understood and declared elsewhere to be revision or translation on the basis of the Delegates' Version, and that is what it is to be while I am taking part, at least as regards the New Testament and the greater part of the Old. We are not going to detract anything from the noble service rendered to us all by Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne.*3

81 See ch. 7.2. Burns’s translation was done in Mandarin, though. 82 The Chuci, a compilation of songs from the south of China of mostly 300 B.C. or earlier, is distinguished by the Soo-style (see ch. 14, fn. 63) or the similar style of the Jiuge 九 歌 —**Nine Songs”一where every line is divided by the emphatical in­ terjection xi 兮. This style—as the example of Psalm 23 shows—was used by Chalmers: 耶和華爲我牧兮吾必無慌 便我伏青草苑兮引靜水旁 蘇吾魂之困倦兮我得安康 俾我行於养路兮其名遂彰 雖過死陰之谷兮亦不畏偈 蓋牧與我同在兮慰以杖鞭 鲥爲我設筵席兮在吾敵骱 曾以胥胥吾W兮盃滿涓涓 我舉1 :得恩寵兮慈祥錦錦 將居耶和華窄兮永遠長年 83 Letter from Chalmers to LMS of Oct. 30, 1890. Elsewhere, Chalmers (1891) wrote that the Delegates' Version “must remain an everlasting monument of a glorious victory won by the early Protestant Missionaries, and it has perhaps done more than anything else to command for Christianity the respect of the educated classes in China." To understand his strong statement for the Delegates' Version, it must be remembered that Chalmers was not only a LMS missionary (like the Delegates' Ver­ sion translators) but also a member of the Delegates’ Version conserving committee (see ch. 4.2.2).

214

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

The same kind of pride in the early achievements of missionaries of the LMS was displayed in the answer of the LMS:84 The Society has been so closely associated from the beginning of mod­ ern Chinese missionary history with the highest form of Christian liter­ ary effort, that it would have indicated a sad retrogression if we had not been prepared to take our full share in the work of preparing the revised text of the Scriptures. It is an honour to the Society that you and Dr. John should have been asked to take so important a share in this work. John Wherry (1837-1918) from the Peking station of the APM, who had been in China since 1864, was to be the only one of the High Wenli com­ mittee to see the whole translation through to its completion. Faber resigned for the reasons described aboVe and was replaced by the Swiss missionary Martin Schaub (1850-1900) of the Basel Mission in Xin'an 新 安 （ today’s Baoan in Shenzhen/Guangdong) who had been in China since 1874. Faber himself had nominated Schaub for the position on both the High and Easy Wenli committees. Much to the disappointment of the Easy Wenli committee,85 after approval of his mission society Schaub only complied with the request of the High Wenli committee. He served on the committee until his death in 1900. When he had tried to initiate a union version in 1880,86 C.C. Baldwin (1820-1911) of the APM had already announced that he himself would not take part in such a translation project because of his advanced age,87 and this was now also his reason for not accepting the position on the Union Version committee.88 The member elected to Baldwin's vacant position was Davello Z. Sheffield (1841-1913), who had been with the ABCFM in Tongzhou (near Peking) since 1869. He was informed of his election in late 1891,89 and after Chalmers’s death he was later to become chairman of the committee. G.E. Moule (1828-1912), with the CMS in Hangzhou since 1858, was the most outspoken of the critics of the chosen basis text. Rule 4 of the conference’s resolutions showed a great uncertainty as to what text to use

M Of Dec. 19, 1890. 83 See letters from Allen to Schaub of Sept. 21, 1891; Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 21, 1891. 86 See ch. 9, fn. 2. 87 See Baldwin 1880, 465. 88 See letter from Chalmers to LMS of Feb. 19, 1891. 89 See letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Oct. 1, 1891.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

215

as the translation's basis, merely recommending the text that “underlies the revised English versions .... with the privilege of any deviations in accor­ dance with the Authorized Version." 90 Mateer, who was responsible for this resolution, remarked that in the first draft he had put the Authorized Version in the place of the English Revised Version, but this was rejected. The way it was finally adopted gave some liberty to the decision of the translators and at the same time met with the approval of the Bible socie­ ties.91 At that time, the three Bible societies had neither published nor offi­ cially sanctioned the English Revised Version and its Greek text,92 and their demands had to be considered in the formation of the principles. Moule stated that though many of the translators were experts in Chi­ nese language and literature, they lacked the expertise in textual criticism which would be necessary for an evaluation of the correctness of either text. He himself favored and proposed the use of the critical remarks on the Greek text of Scrivener,93 whose suggested changes were much more traditional and conservative than in the text adopted by the English Revised Version translators.94 Even though every effort was made to persuade Moule that the translators belonged more to the conservative faction,95 he resigned from the translation committee in November 1891, when the three committees met in Shanghai.96 Joseph Edkins, formerly of the LMS and already part of the committee of the Peking Version, was elected as his

90 See ch. 10.2. 91 See Mateer 1891, 129; Gibson 1891, 225f. 92 Wright, as the BFBS representative, is quoted by Moule (1892, 17) with saying: "The Society’s Rule ... is to take the Textus Receptus with any deviations in accor­ dance with the text that underlies the Revised Version. The Conference turned the Resolution round, but their decision amounted to exactly the same thing. ... You can take the Textus Receptus pure and sim ple. The BFBS only replaced the Textus Re­ ceptus as the official Greek text in 1904 with the critical edition by E. Nestle. n

F.H.A. Scrivener was a supporter of the Textus Receptus. Among his many critical editions is: The New Testament in the Original Greek According to the Text Fol­ lowed in the Authorized Version Together with the Variations Adopted in the Revised Edition, Cambridge 1881. ** See Moule 1891. 6ff.: 1892. 10ff.; 1897, 225ff. 95 See Chinese Recorder 1892, 140. GenShr, wrote in a letter of Dec. 11, 1891, to the Rhenish Missionary Society: besonders auch ich als Deutscher [gab] ihm [Mou]e] die Versicherung, daA wir nicht zu den Radikalen gehdrten, und kritische Stellen nur in dem Falle preisgeben warden, wenn sie absolut unhaltbar seien."

216

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

successor.97 The immediate election was possible because Moule’s resigna­ tion had been anticipated. The committee thus consisted of Chalmers, Shef­ field, Wherry, Schaub, and Edkins. During the 1890 general conference, Muirhead, the secretary of the Delegates’ Version conserving committee, had already predicted of the translation of the High Wenli edition that “a number of well qualified men [of the conserving committee】will be asked to do their part in assisting it, wherever necessary." 98 Three of the members of the conserving committee were indeed elected as High Wenli translators: Moule, Edkins, and Chalm­ ers. The last two, who actually served on the committee, were the strongest defenders of a revision of the Delegates ’ Version rather than a new transla­ tion. 10.5.3. The Mandarin Committee If the election of the committees for the classical versions had proven to be rather difficult, the formation of the Mandarin committee seemed at times almost impossible. Of the twelve men who were nominated in the first stage of electing, five were elected: Blodget; John; Mateer; Chauncey Goodrich (1835-1925) of the ABCFM, who* had worked since 1865 in Tongzhou with the High Wenli translator Sheffield; and George S. Owen (1847-1914) of the LMS’s station in Peking (since 1866). To complete the required number of seven, David Hill and John McIn­ tyre were elected, but both declined, wnotwithstanding every persuasion brought to bear on them ." 99 David Hill (1840-18%), of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society from Hankou, was the outstanding repre­ sentative of his society during his period of service in China (18651896),100 which is emphasized by the fact that he was the English chairman of the 1890 general conference.101 Hill, who was a member of the Easy

97 Though Edkins had been a member of a Mandarin {Peking Version) committee be­ fore, he seemed to have changed his mind in regard to Mandarin. At the 1877 gen­ eral conference he made a strong statement against Mandarin and promoted the use of classical Chinese (see Records 1877, 220). w Letter from Muirhead to LMS of May 10, 1890. 99 Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Rec­ ords 1907, 275. 100 See Latourette 1944, vol. IV, 325. 101 See fh. 49.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

217

Wenli and the Mandarin executive committees, was closely connected with G. John, who also lived in Hankou.102 John McIntyre (d. 1905) of the Scotch United Presbyterian Church was one of the founders of this mission in the northeast of China, where he commenced work in 1875 in Shenyang. He also was on the executive committee for the Mandarin version. G. John declined for the reasons stated above, and for the now three vacant positions new members had to be elected. They were found in John R. Hykes (1852-1921) of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who had been in Jiujang (Jiangxi) since 1873 and was a member of the Mandarin execu­ tive committee; Thomas Bramfitt (1850-1923) of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society, in Hankou since 1875; and Frederick William Bailer (1852-1922). Bailer, a Baptist from Anqing (Anhui) 103 and one of the most prominent CIM missionaries, had been in China since 1873. He was a member of both the High Wenli and Mandarin executive committees, but he did not accept the position on the Mandarin translation committee. He only accepted this position ten years later, when he was urged to join the committee a third time. For the once again vacant position of Bailer, John Livingston Nevius (1929-1893) of the APM, the American chairman of the 1890 general con­ ference, was elected.104 Nevius was one of the missionaries with the longest service in China, having been in Shandong since 1854. Because of a fur­ lough in America, from which he only returned in 1892, he could not take part in the Shanghai meeting of all committees at the end of 1891.105 With his election, the initial Mandarin committee finally consisted of seven men: Blodget, Owen, Goodrich, Mateer, Hykes, Bramfitt, and Nevius.

In letters from John to LMS of June 2, and July 8, 1890, John reported the strong encouragement he received from Hill in regard to his participation in the project. He quoted Hill with: “There is no man who can do so much to help or to hinder this work either in China, or you might say in the world, as yourself, and to us who stand by devoted to duty." He was responsible for the training of new CIM missionaries at a language school in Anqing. See fii. 49. Seech. 11.1.

218

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

10.5.3.1. Formatloo of the Mandarin Committee After 1891 To demonstrate how many obstacles hindered the preservation of the com­ mittee after its first formation, the committee's changing formation until the completion of the NT in 1907 is described as it occurred. Blodget returned to America in 1894, and turned in his resignation the same year. For a while there was no successor elected, because it was hoped that he eventually would return . 106 Finally Bailer was elected a sec­ ond time, but resigned for reasons of bad health and a furlough to England from 1896-1898.107 Bailer was succeeded by Henry McKee Woods (18571943), who had worked in Huaian (Jiangsu) since 1884 under die auspices of the American Southern Presbyterian Mission. From 1896 on, Woods also acted as a member of the Mandarin executive committee, 108 but re­ signed from the translation work in 1904 without any successor being elected. Nevius died in 1893 at the desk where he worked on his Bible transla­ tion , 109 a work that he had apparently enjoyed.110 Norris was elected to fill the vacant position, " 1 and was succeeded after his death in 1894 by Samuel R. Clarke (1853-1916) of the CIM, who had worked in Guizhou since 1878. Clarke resigned in 1901 because of the great distance from Guizhou to the meeting places of the committee, and because Bailer of the same mission was by then part of the committee.112 No replacement for him was elected. Hykes became the ABS agent in China in 1893 and resigned from the committee five years later, in 1898, by which time he had ufurnished no work for the use of the committee.w, 13 He was to have been succeeded by See Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Records 1907, 275. See letter from Mateer to ABS, BFBS and NBSS of June 3, 1898. 108

See fn. 35. See Hays 1893, 550. See letter from Nevius to APM of Jan. 28, 1893 (DOHPC, USA): “I am busily ei>gaged in the work of the revision of the New Testament in Mandarin, and find the work full of interest, and I think I may say, profit.” See letter (Tom Mateer to ABS, BFBS and NBSS of June 3, 1898. It is not clear which Norris is referred to. Both F.L. Norris of the Church of England Mission, North China, as well as F.N. Norris of the CIM died later than 1894. See Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Records 1907, 276. Ibid., 279.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

219

the Briton Alfred G. Jones (1846-1905), who had been with the Baptist Missionary Society in Qingzhou 青少|、 | (today’s Yidu/Shandong) since 1876. On Jones’s declination, the American Spencer Lewis (1854-1939) of the Methodist Episcopal Church was elected in his stead. Lewis, who had worked in Chongqing since 1882, was the superintendent of the West China Mission of his mission society. Both he and his mission society de­ clined the election, Only after Mateer had spoken in person with the Meth»sions in the United States in 1902 was Lewis released odist Board of Missior for the work on Bible translation, which he commenced in 1904. Bramfitt resigned after his return to England in 1897. His place was to have been taken by William Arthur Comaby (1860-1921) of the same mission society, die Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society. Comaby had come to Hanyang (today part of Wuhan) in 1885 and was the editor of ttie Chinese Weekly ( 大同 —）and the Chinese Christian Review ( 中西 教 會 報 )， both publications of the Christian Literature Society (廣 學 會 )，to whose service Comaby eventually turned. He also declined to serve on die Man­ darin translation committee. Bailer was elected for a third time, and, after a period of consideration and some final work on his dictionary,114 he started to work on the committee in 1900. Besides the seventeen names mentioned above, eleven more were can­ vassed and voted for. Several of these did not even allow their names to be used in connection with the work on the Mandarin Union Version.u5 This confusing list reflects the frustration and helplessness felt by the executive committee members during the process of electing and re­ electing. In the reports of Mateer, chairman of both the executive and translation committees, this frustration can be very clearly seen: I am profoundly sorry that we have not been able to make better prog­ ress than we have with our work, but I fear it will be quite impossible for us to complete the work as desired. Many things have been against us and as a Chairman of the Executive committee I have often felt not a little discouraged.116 The reasons for such an inordinate amount of difficulties are diverse. One of the reasons can be traced from the translators，announcements of their election to their respective mission societies. Goodrich wrote:

1.4 Published in 1900 under the title: An Analytic Chinese-English Dictionary. 1.5 See Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Records 1907, 277. 1.6 Letter from Mateer to Bondfield and Hykes of Feb. 17, 1900.

220

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

By the way, I shall have considerable addition—or change—of work in the distant future, as I have been chosen of the translators of the Manda­ rin Bible. " 7 Or Mateer wrote to his friend Nevius: My personal preferences are against the work of translation, and I would fain decline it, but I don’t see how I can in view of the circumstances ... if the Mandarin Bible is to be made, some one must do it; moreover, the men who do it must have the confidence of the missionary body; other­ wise it will be a failure. As it is, circumstances have led me to the posi­ tion, and the strong opinion of the men on the committee, and of others, leads me to feel that I cannot lightly refuse.11* Compared to the letters of the High Wenli translator Chalmers or the re­ sponse from the LMS quoted above, 119 a significant difference can be seen in the way the Mandarin translation work is described. Whereas the letters of Chalmers and the LMS refer to the honor of being involved in important literary work, the Mandarin translators—those who had not peremptorily declined—saw it either as their inescapable duty or as hardly even note­ worthy. The necessity of a Mandarin translation was no longer questioned by that time, but it was not considered to be of as lasting or historical im­ pact as the classical translations. Hence the reluctance of missionaries to serve and the hesitance of their respective societies to allow them to serve. Also tfiere was the question of competence. Schaub, one of the High Wenli translators, wrote: Es braucht viel Ubung, Eingehen in das Volksleben, in die Art und Weise des Fiihlens und Denkens der Chinesen, um gut idiomatisch sprechen zu lernen, was iibrigens fur alle lebenden Sprachen gilt. Dies fallt nun freilich oft gerade den gelehrten Sprachforschera schwer und es ist Thatsache [sic], daB die bedeutendsten Sinologen in China schlecht chinesisch [sic】sprechen.120 There were many experts on classical Chinese among the missionaries. The classical language was defined through its body of literature that could be studied and learned to a good degree. But there was no equivalent in Man­ darin. Though most missionaries could speak their respective dialect well enough to preach and teach, only very few felt competent enough to act as Letter to ABCFM of Nov. 20, 1890. Letter of Dec. 31, 1890, quoted in Fisher 1911, 257. Cf. letter firom Mateer to APM of Aug. 6, 1890 (DOHPC, USA), where be makes a similar statement. See ch. 10.5.2. Schaub 1898. 409.

T h e 1890 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

221

standard defining linguists for Mandarin. It is noteworthy that three of the translators of the Mandarin Union Version, Bailer, Mateer, and Goodrich, had not only formed a group to promote Mandarin as early as 1874,121 but that the most influential textbooks for Mandarin were written by them . 122 A third and very important reason for the problematic formation of the committee was the election to the Mandarin committee of many leading mis­ sionaries, such as John, Hill, McIntyre, Hykes, Nevius, Mateer, or Bailer. Most of them were not as involved witfi literary labor as their colleagues of the classical translations, but rather with the practical mission work of preaching, teaching, or church building—in the end die very reasons for their good Mandarin. Their respective stations or mission societies were most un­ willing to release them from this vital work for something from which, once again, they were not likely to gain any benefit or reputation. 10.6. Summary In the late 1880s, the demand for a common effort toward a Chinese translation of the Bible had become so preeminent that the forthcoming general mission conference in 1890 was very much focused on this one question. Among the missionaries and the involved mission and Bible so­ cieties, there was a great degree of anxiety about the proceedings and the outcome of the discussions. The seemingly harmonious result was in reality due to massive compromises as part of a conflict-avoiding strategy. The con^romises included the choice of styles of Chinese in which the Union Version was to be translated in order to avoid conflict with the supporters of the Delegates' Version; the Greek basis text to avoid conflict with the Bible societies; Chinese basis texts to avoid conflict with the supporters of some versions; the quotas of the executive and translation committees to ensure a broad acceptance; and the avoidance of the great questions on the translation of “God” and “Spirit,” as well as “baptism,” to avoid conflicts along the old lines 'drawn between nationalities and denominations. Most of these compromises turned into severe difficulties in the later translation process. As it had been earlier in the 1880s, Griffith John’s position was again crucial, though he neither attended the conference nor any of the transla­ tion committees. The NBSS held desperately to its support of his transla­ u, See Hyatt 1976, 201 f. 122 Bailer published his Mandarin Primer in 1887, Mateer his A Course o f Mandarin Lessons in 1892, and Goodrich his Pocket Dictionary in 1906.

222

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 10

tions as the very reason for its rather influential position in China. The de­ cision for the Union Version could have been made in complete unison if not for the interference by the representative of the NBSS. Careful attenq)ts to bind John into the translation scheme were motivated by fears that with­ out his involvement and the influence that he had in the missionary com­ munity, the Union Version could fail. Besides the rather symbolic allow­ ance to use his versions in the Union Version translation project, however, John rejected any kind of involvement in the project and eventually even continued with his own translation. Nevertheless, his influence in the long run was somewhat limited and the harm done die Union Version project was not as great as anticipated. There were great differences in the election processes of the translation committees for each style. For the classical translations, especially the High Wenli committee, the election was accepted as an honor for the mis­ sionary and his mission society; any declinations were mostly theologically motivated. The Mandarin translation committee was not so easily formed. This was partly due to the additional restrictions of location within China, but even more to the evaluation of Mandarin. While a Mandarin Union Version was considered important, it was thought of neither as worthy of great effort nor as a likely source of fame or influence, resulting in the declination of such a great number of missionaries. Additionally, many of the men elected into the Mandarin committee were in positions of vital im­ portance for their respective mission that uniquely qualified them for par­ ticipation in the translation committee. But these same positions also made it seem impossible for the missionaries to be spared in favor of translation work. The Anally assembled Mandarin translation committee consisted of three men who had given much of their lives to the promotion of Mandarin anyway—Mateer, Goodrich, and Bailer—and others whose qualifications were quite limited.

.

11

UNION VERSION: NEW TESTAMENT TRANSLATION

11.1. Meeting o f Translatkm Committees in Shanghai On November 18，1891，as soon as all three translation committees were formed, the translators met with members of the executive committees in the rooms of the BFBS in Shanghai. The cost of the travel expenses—as most later expenses—were shared by the three Bible societies.1 The pur­ pose of the meeting was to organize and coordinate the work of the trans­ lation committees and to define the principles of translation. Of all the elected translators, only Gibson of the Easy Wenli committee and Goodrich and Nevius of the Mandarin committee could not attend. Burdon was named chairman of the conference.2 He emphasized the importance of unity among the translators in his opening address, as well as his regret that Schereschewsky could not take part in the translation.3 For the next two days, Moule tried unsuccessfully to persuade the other translators to change the decision about the basis text,4 an attempt which eventually only resulted in his resignation and the immediate election of Edkins into the High Wenli committee.

1 The BFBS and the ABS were each responsible for two fifths of the costs and the NBSS for one fifth. 2

GenShr pointed out that Mateer, though not elected chairman, again played a central role at the meeting: "Vergessen habe ich nur Dr. Mateer von Tungcbow [Dengzhou] zu erw3hnen, der eine groBe Rolle auf den Conferenzen spielte" (letter to lUienish Missionary Society of Dec. 11. 1891).

J

See Chinese Recorder 1891, 575ff. Some missionaries, like his Peking Version col­ league Blodget, had expressed their hope that Schereschewsky could be on all three translation committees (see letter from Blodget to ABS of June 14, 1890). Hykes mentioned in two letters to the ABS (of March 21, 1896, and April 8, 1899) that Schereschewsky actually bad been asked to join the Easy Wenli and Mandarin translation committees, but he had declined.

4

Cf. ch. 10.5.2.

224

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

In the further course of the meeting, several committees, each consist­ ing of one member of each of the translation committees, were appointed to coordinate the translation work .5 The first of these committees, consist­ ing of Schaub, Graves, and Bramfitt,6 was responsible for the Greek text. Its duties were to note the variations of the respective translators and com­ mittees and to collect statements of authorities on these readings, so that in a final meeting of all three committees, decisions could be found on which reading to adopt. As a somewhat more specified but still very liberal rule for the basis text it was decided that “in order to secure harmony in first drafts of translation, great weight be given to the Revised English Version of the Bible as an interpretation of the original text.”7 Sheffield, Burdon, and Goodrich formed a committee on ^Harmony of Versions," which was to note all different renderings of the respective committees and bring them before die translation committees for decision, and, if desired, before the final meeting of all committees. A third committee on the translation of dieological terms was formed of Chalmers, Burdon, and Mateer. These theological terms were not to in­ clude translations for “God,” “S p irit, and **baptism," which were to be chosen by the Bible societies.8 The last committee, for uniform transliterations of proper names, con­ sisted of five persons—Graves, Chalmers, Bramfitt, Wherry, and Burdon— underlining the importance of this question. ' liflcance in the process of None of these committees gained any significance lation, a result of the nearly non-existent cooperation diat took place translation, between the translation committees. Only certain members of the! commitcoi tee on transliteration, namely Graves and—to some degree—Clhalmers,9

For information about the meeting, see report by Hykes (secretary) in Chinese Recorder 1892, 25ff. It was not surprising that Schaub was elected into this committee. Of Swiss nation­ ality, yet belonging to the German school of textual criticism, he remarked: **Besonders merkte ich, daB die Engl&nder und Amerikaner vor den Deutschen Furcht haben, weil sie gewohnt sind ihren sogenannten higher criticism als von Deutschland nach England importiert anzusehen. Ich benihigte Sie, dafi sie von uns deutschen und schweizerischen Missionaren nichts zu filrchten hitten" (letter from Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 21, 1891). Cf. ch. 10, fh. 95. Chinese Recorder 1892, 26. See 10.2. See Graves's articles in the Chinese Recorder 1894, 153AF.; 478fT.; 1895, 377ff.; 1897, 581 ff.; New Testament Proper Names, ms. [n.d.]; Chalmers 1897 ms.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

225

were active in their respective fields, but this was not understood as official committee work .10 In addition, both Faber and Schereschewsky were invited as corre­ sponding members to the translation committees, which the latter de­ clined , 11 and each committee of translators was to issue an invitation “to the whole body of missionaries and to Chinese scholars who might be in­ terested in the work of revision” to suggest changes in the existing ver­ sions. Only the Mandarin committee actually followed this rule.12 Eighteen principles of translation were adopted: 1. Passages expressed in the same terms and in the same or similar connection in the original, translate in the uniform manner. 2. Translate Greek and Hebrew words occurring in different places and used in the same sense by the same Chinese words. 3. When practicable, use the nearest Chinese words to express weights and measures, terms in natural history, botany, etc., putting in the margin, when necessary, their actual value if ascertainable. In other cases transliterate the original words. 4. Allow the interchange of noun and pronoun when conducive to clearness. 5. Where, according to Chinese idiom, pronouns would not be re­ peated, use them only when required for special emphasis or to pre­ vent ambiguity. 6 . In passages in which by a Hebrew idiom different persons of the pronoun occur to denote the same person or persons, the use of one person be allowed throughout when necessary to prevent obscurity. 7. In the W6n-li versions exclude all signs of the plural in pronouns which are not necessary to prevent ambiguity, unless good Chinese taste requires them. 8 . Render euphemisms in the original by corresponding euphemisms in Chinese, and use euphemisms in other cases when desirable. 9. Retain metaphors and comparisons so far as possible.

Bondfield of the BFBS wrote in 1909 (p. 688) about the work of this committee: “Up to this date, however, nothing, so far as I know, has been done, and of the members of that committee only Dr. R.H. Graves and Dr. Wherry are now with us." See letter from Schereschewsky to Stevenson of Aug. 7, 1892, quoted in Chinese Recorder 1892, 485. Schereschewsky was additionally invited to become corre­ sponding member of the committee on transliteration, which be also rejected. See letter from Hykes in the name of the Mandarin committee, in Chinese Recorder 1892, 529f.

226

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

10. When, in the division of our work amongst the translators, books are divided, take special pains to make the separate parts uniform in style and expression. 11. Make a special effort to render literally words and phrases which have a theological or ethical importance, and which are, or may be, used by any school for proof or support of doctrines; putting expla­ nations in the margin, if necessary. 12. As readableness is essential to an acceptable version, allow more freedom of expression and arrangement of clauses, so as to secure perspicuity, measures and idiom in portions that have no special theological significance. 13. In translating the poetical books of the Old Testament, preservfe the form of the Hebrew parallel as far as practicable. 14. When any passage in the original is ambiguous, adopt, as a rule, that rendering which seems best to suit the context. 15. When two or more interpretations seem quite or nearly equally good, give one in the text and the other, or others, in the margin. 16. Write the genealogical table at the beginning of St. Matthew's Gos­ pel [1:1-17] three characters lower than the following text, to show that it is an introduction. 17. Punctuate by using the ordinary Chinese dot [ • 】for comma and semicolon, a small circle [ 。】for period and a large circle [〇 ] to divide paragraphs. 18. While general uniformity of style is desirable in the whole Bible, do not press this so strenuously as to obliterate the individuality of the original writers.13 It is revealing to note how much these rules were based on former experi­ ence in Chinese Bible translation. Principles 1 through 8 were in a similar form already part of the Delegates’ Version’s principles, 14 while some of the following principles must be understood as an atten^t to guard against a distinctly non-literal translation—like the Delegates’ Version. Especially principle 9, aiming to retain metaphors—which was always stressed as im­ portant by the Union Version translators, but not by the Delegates’ Ver­ sion ls translators—is to be seen as such. Principle 12 can be interpreted as a surrender to a less literal translation in places of lesser significance. Prin­ ciples 11 and 15 were intended to secure the character of a union version, avoiding former splits like that of the Delegates’ Version’s committee. The

11 Report of Hykes, in Chinese Recorder 1892, 26f. 14 Seech. 4.1.1.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

227

translation of ambiguous passages, principle 14, can be found in a similar form in G. John’s principles for translation.13 The controversial discussion about the basis text proved to be the only point of conflict during the meetings, so that when the meeting was con­ cluded on November 23, the participants praised the harmonious spirit and former doubts about the meeting's necessity were swept away.16 Genahr wrote to his society: Dank der guten Leitung und dem allgemeinen Verlangen eine Union Version zustande kommen zu sehen, dem jeder kleinliche Wiinsche unterzuordnen suchte, nahmen die Verhandlungen, die V/i Tage wahrten, einen sehr befriedigenden Verlauf. And he even went so far as to state: Nicht wenige nahmen den Eindruck mit nach Hause, daB wir am Ende unserer Arbeit auch noch iiber die schwierige Term Question, die be. kanntlich fur Dr. Faber der Stein des Anstofiens war, uns einigen und verstandigen konnen.17 Considering the great range of expectations and personalities of the mis­ sionaries attending, this was indeed a success. 11.2. Easy Wenli Translation The translation of the Easy Wenli Union Version was considered by the majority to be the most important of the three projects, 18 and it seemed in­ deed to be the most successful with the early completion of its NT transla­ tion. Ironically, in the end it proved to be the greatest failure in the entire translation scheme of the Union Version.

See ch. 8.1.1. Blodget, for example, wrote before the conference in a letter to the ABCFM of May 14, 1891: "I have already made a move to the commencement of work in the Man­ darin Committee, which does 控 not contemplate a preliminary meeting of all the Committees in Shanghai, whichi it seems to me is unnece unnecessary; and, if unnecessary, undesirable" (underline Iby Blodget). Two days after the meeting, on November 25, 1891, he wrote to the ABCFM: **As I wrote you in my last letter, we were summoned to Shanghai for the 18th Nov. to meet as a Committee (at the e^ense of the Bible So­ cieties), to arrange for the work of translation and revision of the Scriptures. The meetings continued five days. Harmony and kindly feelings prevailed." Letter from GenShr to Rhenish Missionary Society of Dec. 11, 1891. In letters of Mateer (of Jan. 1892, to APM, quoted in Fisher 1911, 258), or Chalmers (of Dec. 10, 1891, to LMS) the harmony of the meeting was similarly emphasized.

228

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

11.2.1. Proceedings and Meetings of Committee The procedures of translation were somewhat similar to both the Delegates' and Peking Versions. The text of the NT was split into five parts, each consisting of a historical and an epistolary section (the book of Revelation was considered to be of the second category). Each of these parts was to be individually translated by an assigned member of the translation commit­ tee .19 The translation was to be written on sheets of paper with six blank columns following the column of the first draft. The blank columns were reserved for the suggestions of the other four translators, a second proposal of the original translator, and the final decision by the whole committee which would meet together for that purpose. This fairly complicated procedure explains why the committees had al­ lowed some time to elapse after the 1891 meeting in Shanghai before meeting again. Even so, when the Easy Wenli committee came together in 1896 in Hong Kong, it was the flrst of the three translation committees to meet again. By that time Blodget had returned to America and retired from both the Mandarin and Easy Wenli committees. A.P. Parker (1850-1924) of the American Southern Methodist Episcopal Mission was elected as his successor. Parker had been in Shanghai since 1875 and had worked on Bi­ ble translations in the local dialects of Shanghai and Suzhou. After having looked through the first drafts, he resigned from the Easy Wenli commit­ tee, and was replaced by John Wright Davis (1849-1917) of the American Southern Presbyterian Mission. Davis had come to Suzhou in 1873, and had started to work on the translation of the Bible into the dialect of Su­ zhou in 1879, partly together with his predecessor Parker. The new constitution of the committee proved to be helpful in regard to the working stations of the members. All of its members were now living in the south of China (Blodget had been stationed in Peking), thus making the journeys to a common meeting place easier. The first meeting took place in Hong Kong in July and August 1896. Though Genahr was not present at that meeting, his description of a meet­ ing in 1897 gives an impression of the proceedings: Mit dreien meiner Kollegen zusammen, dem Kantoner Dr. Graves, aus Soochow war Dr. Davis und dem hiesigen Missionar Gibson bei dem ich wohne, arbeiten wir auch tSglich zusammen von 9 bis 1 Uhr. ... Lang19 Burdon was to translate Matt. 1-24, and Rom. - 1 Cor. 11; Gibson Matt. 25 - Luke 2, and Phil. - Philem.; Blodget Luke 3-24, and 1 Cor. 12 - Eph.; Graves John, and Hebrews - 3 John; and Genihr Acts. Jude, and Rev. (see Report o f Committee o f Translators o f the Easy Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 269).

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

229

sam aber sicher schreitet die Arbeit voran, und ich glaube wir haben alle Segen davon. Meine Besorgnis, ich mochte als der einzige Deutsche in der Kommission von unseren englischen und amerikanischen Kollegen uberstimmt werden, hat sich zu meiner Uberraschung und Befriedigung nicht erfullt. Zwar habe ich mehr als einmal nachgeben miissen. ... Ich habe aber gefunden, das Nachgeben in solchen Fallen mir in anderen viel leichter zum Sieg verhalf, als ich gedacht hatte. Wir stimmen nMmlich bei der endgiiltigen Fassung eines jeden Verses ab, wobei natiirlich dem Revisor des Buches, um ihm ein gewisses Ubergewicht zu sichem, mehr als nur eine Stimme, anderthalb nMmlich [ms. illegible]. Es ist oft gar nicht leicht, sich iiber die Fassung eines Verses zu einigen, da wir einander gar nicht verstehen. ... Gibson spricht den mir ganz fremden Dialekt des Ge kio [Chaozhou], und Dr. Davis Mandarin, eine mir ebenfalls fast unbekannte Sprache. Bei jedem steht ein ihre Sprache sprechender Lehrer zur Verfugung. Dr. Graves und ich, die wir beide Punti [bendi 本 地 一 “Cantonese”】sprechen, haben uns mit einem Lehrer begniigt. Welch ein Sprachendurcheinander da oft herrscht, konnen Sie sich kaum denken. Ins Englische bin ich schnell wieder hineingekommen, so dafi ich ohne besondere Schwierigkeiten roich mit den Kollegen verstandigen kann.20 Genahr's description includes some details of the translation work that were characteristic not only of the Easy Wenli version but also of the work of other committees as well. Actual work in the committee occupied only part of the day, the other part being reserved for studies with their respec­ tive Chinese assistants and preparatory work for the next day. Each trans­ lator had a Chinese assistant, who did not have a vote in the decision for the final translation, and whose duties—at least in this early phase of the work—were limited to stylistic and grammatical corrections. The fact that Genahr does not mention the names of the assistants in this or in any of his other letters is very typical. Most of the Chinese translators of the Union Version can for this reason not be traced by name. The fact that GenShr and Graves shared an assistant in the meeting was uncommon. Usually the Chinese assistants were also involved in the individual translation work in between committee meetings and thus needed in the meetings to defend the respective translations. Though all members of the committee were from the South, the pro­ ceedings were—as in the other committees—severely hampered by the great differences of dialects. The Chinese assistants, with very few excep­ tions, could not speak English, which served as a lingua franca for the 20 Letter from Genihr to Rhenish Missionary Society of July 11, 1897.

230

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

non-Chinese translators, thus effectively excluding the Chinese colleagues from much of the translation process. As a general rule in the work of all committees, it was decided that the translator of a specific section would have the casting vote for that section in case of a At its firs ting in Hong Kong, the Easy Wenli committee conq)leted the translation of the Gospels of Matthew and Mark. These were published in a tentative edition by the three involved Bible societies in 1897.21 Its introduction reads: 1) This version should be read with the Greek Testament lying open be­ side it. Though we have carefully examined previous versions we have tried mainly to be faithful to the Greek. Hence some expres­ sions may occur which are not familiar to those who are accustomed only to some one of the previous versions. 2) We wish to acknowledge our indebtedness to Dr. Chalmers, who has kindly placed at our disposal his new version, and many of whose suggestions we have followed. 3) We have allowed much weight to the opinions and preferences of the individual revisers, Bishop Burdon and Rev. J.C. Gibson, especially with regard to theological and psychological words, pending a report from the Committee to recommend suitable terms. 4) Our version must be regarded as tentative rather than final. We shall be glad therefore to receive any suggested improvements, which may be sent to R.H. Graves, Secretary, Canton. As to the request for suggestions, which would be repeated in each tenta­ tive edition, “very few were sent to the translators" ;22 this did not mean, however, that the version was not criticized. Most of the very harsh criti­ cism was directed against the extreme fidelity to the Greek text, which was understood to go against all Chinese rules of style and taste. As the intro­ duction reveals in point 1 , this was the outspoken aim of the translators. They were strongly influenced in that by John Chalmers (see point 2), who was a member of the High Wenli committee and—together with M. Schaub—translator of a private NT edition .23

21 For reasons of clarity, all separate publications of the Union Version editions are listed below on a separate chart (see Appendices, Chart 3). 22 Report o f Committee o f Translators o f the Easy Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 23 See ch. 11.3.2. For Chalmers's influence, cf. Gibson in Report o f Committee o f Translators o f the Easy Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 270.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

231

Point 3 reflects the importance of the casting vote of Burdon and Gib­ son who were the translators of Matthew and Mark .24 The second meeting took place at Gibson's house in Shantou from July 4 dirough August 15, 1897, and resulted in the completion of the two other Gospels, Luke and John, as well as the book of Acts. The Gospels were issued in 1898 in the same manner as the first two Gospels.23 Burdon did not attend this meeting. The third meeting, in the months of July and August 1898, took place in Hong Kong. The translation committee, with only Gibson being absent, brought the books of Romans and 1 Corinthians to completion.26 This first translated part of the Pauline Epistles was published together with the book of Acts in 1899. At a fourth meeting in 1899, again in Hong Kong, the books from 2 Corinthians dirough Ephesians and Hebrews were translated. In an effort to make it possible for every member to attend, the meeting was held from January 30 through February 25. This was partly during the time of the Chinese New Year, when normal work at the individual mission stations paused .27 At the fifth meeting, which took place in Shantou from July 3 through August 16, 1899, the missionaries and their Chinese assistants translated the catholic Epistles and Revelation. In the same year, all the Epistles from Hebrews on were published in one volume with the book of Revelation. In this edition, acknowledgments were given to the versions by Chalmers/ Schaub and Schereschewsky.28 Separate revised editions of the four Gospels, which took some received suggestions into consideration, were additionally published in 1899. The sixth and last committee meeting took place in Shantou in 1900, beginning on January 15. Though Davis could not attend the meeting,29 the

25 26

See fh. 19. Hykes (1916, 9) has 1899 as the publishing date. It was originally planned to translate both Epistles to the Corinthians (see letters from GenShr to Rhenish Missionary Society of July 16, and 22, 1898). See letter firom GenMhr to Rhenish Missionary Society of 1900 (exact date illegible).

28

See Darlow/Moule 1903, vol. II-l, 209.

29

Genihr had also planned not to attend, but was told by Graves, the secretary of the committee: “I do hope you will make every effort to go to Swatow [Shantou] ... [and】you will see it your duty to go." The rather acquiescent comment from GenShr was: “Was konnte ich da machen?" (letter from GenShr to Rhenish Missionary So­ ciety of 1900 [exact date illegible]).

232

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

translation of the NT was brought to completion on February 14 with the translation of the books from Philippians through Hiilemon .30 The second part of the Pauline Epistles (2 Corinthians - Philemon) was published in 1900, again with an acknowledgment to the versions by Schereschewsky and Chalmers/Schaub.31 The committee had planned to finish the NT translation before the third general conference, which was either to take place in 1900 or 1901. How­ ever, the conference was postponed to 1901 because of the World Mission­ ary Conference of that year in New York, and again to 1907—the centen­ nial anniversary of Morrison’s arrival in China—because of the Boxer up­ rising in China. The Easy Wenli committee did not continue its work on the OT translation in view of the slow progress of the other committees on the NT translation.32 In 1902, the complete NT was published; this edition was slightly re­ vised by Graves and Genahr33 and again published in 1903. Another edition of 1904 was subjected to more alterations, this time by Gibson.34 11.2.2. Textual Basis and Principles of Translation After some disagreement regarding the Greek basis text stemming from the translators* attempt to follow the liberal advice of the 1891 meeting in Shanghai,35 the Easy Wenli committee decided: 1. That in our text we adhere to the 'Text underlying the Revised Ver­ sion* without deviation. 2. That where there is a substantial difference of opinion among the five critical authorities collated by Scrivener,36 ... we give the alternative reading in a note.37 M See letter from Graves to ABS of Feb. 14, 1900. See Spillett 1975, 56. 32

The remarks in the ABS Report 1903 (177) proved to be only wishful thinking: “There is no report from the Easy Wenli Company of Revisers for the year. This does not mean that the individual translators have been idle. They are not that sort of men; and they have undoubtedly done a lot of preparatory work on the Old Testa­ ment.H

3J

See BFBS Report 1904, 412.

34

See BFBS Report 1905, 372.

J5

See ch. 11.1.

36

See ch. 10, fn. 93.

37

Report o f Committee o f Translators o f the Easy Wenli Version，in Records 1907, 270.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

233

In the 1902 edition of the Gospel of John, the revised text as the basis can be detected in the two relevant passages in John 1, verses 24 and 27.38 The former {English Revised Version: “and they had been sent from the Phari­ sees") is translated with 其人乃卩法咧嚷人所逍一“these people were sent by the Pharisees"—and in the latter the second part of the Authorized Ver­ sion (“is preferred before me”）is omitted: 彼乃後我而來者 一“he was the one who came after me.” The great fidelity to the Greek text alluded to in the above-quoted pref­ ace39 can clearly be seen in the first chapter of John . 有一人爲上 帝 戸斤逍—"there was a man, sent from God”一in verse 6 attempts to recon­ struct the Greek syntax (fiy^velet£d represents a strong reaction against extreme literalism" (Report o f the Committee o f Translators o f the High Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 273). 90 See letter from Chalmers to LMS of Nov. 30, 1892: **I am getting on much to my own satisfiKtion with die revision of the N.T. One of my associates, Mr Schaid) of the

244

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

his furlough from 1894-1895 delayed its completion. When Chalmers re­ turned to Hong Ko ugh, he immediately started to work on the translation again91 an inced to his mission society on July 19, 1897: For myself I feel that I am unable to take part in the conflicts of a Committee. My own work is drawing near completion. Two of us have decided to print the N.T. with private means given to us. Unanimity [in the High Wenli committee】is impossible. The one and only edition of their NT bears the date of June 21, 1897, and was printed in Hong Kong. The preface states: As the time is not yet ripe for a meeting with our three colleagues who were appointed with us to revise the Delegates' Version ... we print this revision of the NT as a contribution towards a more faithful Chinese translation. We have to thank Dr. Eitel,92 who has been in perfect agree­ ment with us as to the principles of translation, for many valuable sug­ gestions. ... If we have throughout made many suggestions which will ultimately prove helpful towards a more perfect and literal translation of the Word, we are content humbly to leave our work in the hands of oth­ ers, thanking God for helping us hitherto. (Underline by Chalmers/ Schaub.) Chalmers and Schaub repeatedly stressed the fact that they saw dieir work on the Union Version as a revision of the Delegates' Version-^ in the NT edition of Chalmers and Schaub there are only traces of the Delegates’ Ver­ sion, however, and the changes in the text are too manifold to call it a mere revision. Their version was an experimental translation which was intended neither to replace the Delegates’ Version nor the not yet comBasel Mission, and I will probably have agreed about the whole N.T. before the end of 1893. The rest are so slow that I suppose they will take to the end of the century to fin­ ish; for which men of my age cannot wait." 91 See letter from Chalmers to LMS of Jan. 1, 1896: “The reason that I did not write was that after the first week q)eat in settling down, I began at once to do a portion of the Acts which was waiting too long and after a month of close work with good native I got it off to Shanghai yesterday." t J. Eitel (1838-1908), who came to China with the Basel Mission in 1862, transferred to the LMS in 1865 and became a governmental inspector of schools in Hong Kong in 1878. It is not clear whether Eitel was also the sponsor of the publi­ cation. In Schaub’s letter to the Basel Mission of Dec. 27, 1899, the sponsor is only referred to as “ein reicher Hongkonger Leser, der sich fUr die Arbeit interessierte." w For Chalmers, see ch. 10.5.2. Schaub wrote in a letter to his mission society of April 16, 1892: “Mit dem Evangelium Lucas wurde ich vor einigen Wochen fertig. Die Evangelien sind seiner Zeit von Medhurst etc. meistens sehr gut Qbersetzt worden, so daB ich nur zu revidieren hatte."

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

245

pleted High Wenli Union Version. Rather, it was to serve as a working basis for the Union Version translation. This is clearly shown in the fact that Chalmers/Schaub’s translation of the Greek text followed neither the conventions of Bible translation in China regarding terminology and trans­ literations, nor the traditions of their respective churches. The greatest point of criticism of the Delegates’ Version, its lack of fidelity to the origi­ nal, was avoided as much as possible. A few examples may illustrate this. Chalmers/Schaub rendered John 1 :1 元 始 有 道 ，道 與 上 帝 共 在 ，道即 帝 也 一 “In the beginning was the Logos, the Logos and God (shangdi) were together, the Logos was therefore god (di).” This translation is almost identical to the Delegates’ Version except for the use of di 発 instead of shangdi 上岳：in the last part. With the use of di Chalmers/Schaub empha­ sized the missing article in the Greek text before 3e6v, which tiien be­ comes a predicate with the meaning “as God” or “divine”. The considera­ tion of this in a translation was unique among Chinese translations94 as well as the common English versions. Chalmers/Schaub rendered “baptism” with the term zhan 蘇 一 “dip into.” With this they paid tribute to the Greek term that indicates **immer­ sion" like the Baptist translations.93 Similarly, the preposition k \ in John 1:26, 31, and 33 was translated with yu 於 一“in.”96 More examples for Chalmers/Schaub’s attempt to achieve greater fidel­ ity may be found in 麵 幕 一“live in a tent (tabernacle)n (John 1:14)一 which is a direct rendering of the Greek ctkt| v 6 cd ( feC T K tiv o x re v ), or the strict translation of the plural, even if already implied in the context.97 Chalmers/Schaub followed the interpretations and the Greek basis text of the English Revised Version: in John 1:24 they rendered with the Eng­ lish Revised Version 其 人 爲 法 利 弃 人 所 逍 一“these people were sent by

only Chinese exception is the interconfessional translation (see Appendices) e it says in John 1 :1 :太初有道，道和上帝同在，道 有 神 件 一“in the begin­ ning was Logos, and Logos was together with God, and Logos was divine." 4

95 However, the Baptists no longer used zhan 能 in connection with “baptism,” but rather jin 浸 (see ch. 2.3.4). Chalmers/Schaub's avoidance of jin must be under­ stood as an attempt to be faithful to the text rather than to follow the contemporary Baptist tradition. 96 Cf. ch. 11.2.2. 97 John 1:12 has 上 帝 諸 子 一“children of G o d "- or 1:51,上 帝 諸 使 一“envoys (an­ gels) of God."

246

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

the Pharisees"98—and in verse 27 they did not translate the "preferred be­ fore me" of the Authorized Version and its Greek text.99 The transliterations differ to a great degree from the traditional Protes­ tant transliterations. A new system of transliterations, developed by Chalmers and Graves,100 attempted to give one Chinese syllable as an equivalent for every Greek or Hebrew sound. This took into consideration the pronunciation of the Chinese syllables in Cantonese and Hakka as well as Mandarin, so that most of the transliterations were changed. £xanq>les are andeliao 安得寥 for andelie 安 得 烈 (A vSpiaq) or yuexie 約變 for yuese 約 瑟 （ Ioxrfiq)).101 However, critics took issue with the use of un­ common characters such as liao 黎 and xie ^ f .102 In the case of mishiya 彌施亞 一“Messiah”一the Anglicism ([ai] rather than [i]) of the former transliteration misaiya 彌赛亞 was avoided.103 This transliteration was also reminiscent of the Nestorian mishihe 彌 施 i 可，the transliteration of “Messiah” found on the Nestorian stele in Xi’an.104 The publication of the translation by Chalmers/Schaub caused some amount of excitement. Bondfield, the BFBS agent, gave a great deal of attention to this translation in his list of Chinese versions: The style is ‘High’ Wenli, and the translation is remarkable for its fidel­ ity to the original. Many new terms and a number of unfamiliar charac­ ters are used, and these features, combined with its rugged Chinese style have been generally criticized, but no translation has probably marked a greater advance in accuracy of renderings, and in this respect it is a monument of original research and Chinese scholarship.105 Otherwise the version was, as already alluded to in Bondfield’s quotation, most strongly criticized. Contemporary Chinese authors describe the style as lacking fluency and many terms as eccentric，106 whereas Chalmers’s and Schaub’s fellow missionaries, especially their colleagues in Bible transla­

98 Authorized Version: “And they were sent were of the Pharisees." 99 Seech. 8.1.2. 100 Seech. 11.2.2. 101 See Zetzsche 1994, 180. ,ra. See Moule 1897, 277. 103 Cf. ch. 7.4.3. 104 See Chalmers 1897 ms. 105 Bondfield 1915, 472. 106 See Luo 1988, 38.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

247

tion, found even harsher words to criticize this version. The Mandarin Union Version translator Goodrich wrote: This version is very close to the Greek, but very poor Chinese style, and often enigmatical Chinese, over which good scholars stumble badly. They cannot guess what it intended to say.107 (Underline by Goodrich.) The High Wenli translator Sheffield wrote with obvious personal hurt: Chalmers and Schaub of my Committee broke with the Committee and with private funds published an edition of 1000 copies of their work.108 This work by its literalisms and crabbed style dug for itself a deep and effectual grave.109 11.3.3. Meetings and New Formation of Committee Wherry and Sheffield of the High Wenli committee were very much of one mind in the translation process. They lived only about 30 km apart from each other (Wherry in Peking and Sheffield in Tongzhou) and had privately met for revision in 1898 and again in 1900.110 After Sheffield’s manuscript was destroyed by fire in 1900, he did not even consider this a disaster. Those parts which had not been sent for revision to other translators and were thus spared from destruction were mostly identical to Wherry’s work anyway."1 Only after the death of Chalmers did Sheffield, who succeeded Chalm­ ers as chairman of the committee, convene meetings of the complete committee.112 The conflicts finally seemed solvable, as he and Wherry would hold the majority vote. Sheffield wrote to his mission society: 107 Letter to ABCFM of March 1, 1905. '* Sheffield seemed to have had wrong information about the actual number of copies, because Schaub only mentioned the number of 300 (see letter firom Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 27, 1899). 109 Letter to ABCFM of July 19, 1905. 1,0 See letters from Sheffield to ABCFM of Oct. 25, 1898, and of Dec. 14, 1900. About the meeting in 1898, Sheffield reports: “During the summer Dr. Wherry and myself spent about six weeks together with my Chinese assistant, and went over Matthew, John, and ten chapters of Mark. On these sections there are but a few pas­ sages that we left for later consideration" (quoted in ABS Report 1899, 105). 111 See letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Dec. 14, 1900. 112 Sheffield and Wherry had tried to call a meeting before Chalmers died, during his absence on furlough. As Chalmers was still chairman of the committee, it was a very uncommon step to call a meeting without him. Schaub did not agree to join the committee for that meeting because "hierzu hatte ich keine Zeit und wollte vor allem

248

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

While I have little regard for the work of Dr. Edkins he belongs on the Committee, and so while he be certainly an obstruction in the work in the end it would be the work of the Committee even if we had for the most part moved ahead without his approval."3 Successors for Chalmers and Schaub were not appointed to the committee until 1902, and for three months, beginning in March 1901, Edkins joined Sheffield and Wherry for the first official committee meeting.114 Sheffield described the committee work and the cooperation with Edkins in a letter to his mission society: Dr. Edkins ... has been in Peking for four weeks, and with Dr. Wherry and myself is working daily. Both he and his Chinese assistant are very urgent to keep to the free rendering of the Medhurst version [Delegates, Version]. Here and there we yield a point but substantially hold to the work already fixed by careful study, as variations from the Medhurst have all been for reasons that at once manifest themselves on critical ex­ amination. Dr. Edkins is a very pleasant old gentleman personally, and has vast stores of knowledge of Chinese matters, but is wholly uncritical in dealing with the work of translation, now urging for style and now for conformity with others. We are in the boat and moving down the river. We must continue to a place of landing!113 Even though translation work had been in progress on several parts of the NT, and at least two of the Gospels had been almost finished in 1898,1,6 a tentative translation of the Gospel of Matthew was the only completed re­ sult of these meetings. This was published by the three Bible societies in September 1901. According to Sheffield’s letter above, it appears the committee meetings were to some degree only a formality to fulfill the requirements of their task. Yet it was a formality which was considered to be of great impor­ tance. After the death of Schaub and Chalmers, this importance became especially apparent in the need to complete the committee. In 1902, the missionaries Pearce and Lloyd were asked to join and fill out the seats nec­ essary to complete the committee. noch auf meinen Mitarbeiter Dr. Chalmers warten" (letter from Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 27, 1899). 1,3 Letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Sept. 27, 1900 114 The first meeting had been planned for the summer of 1900 in Japan but had to be delayed because of the Boxer uprising. 1.5 Letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Apr. 7, 1901 1.6 See fin. 110.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

249

Thomas William Pearce (1855-1938) of the LMS had been in Canton since 1879 and had moved to Chalmers’s station, Hong Kong, in 1893. Pearce was said to be an excellent speaker of Cantonese117 and was strongly involved in educational work in his position as a member of the Government Board of Education in Hong Kong. He himself understood his appointment as Chalmers’s successor as a great honor and opportunityvery much like Chalmers himself"8—to continue the LMS tradition: The reasons that incline me to answer yes, are not the too flattering views taken by the missionaries in Central China of my attainments in Classical Chinese. The consideration that soughs [sic] with me is, that this effort would be to continue the work of my oldest and dearest friend Dr Chalmers, and to carry on the traditions of this mission in the work of Bible translation.119 Apparently no German (or Swiss) successor could be found for Schaub, and so Llewelyn Lloyd (1850-1931) of the CMS, in Fuzhou since 1876, was elected to the committee. Lloyd had already finished work in a revi­ sion committee for the Bible into the local dialect of Fuzhou in 1891 and returned from a furlough to England in October of 1903. The new members were given the manuscript of the complete NT translation by Sheffield and Wherry, which they started to revise; they also began to prepare some translations themselves.120 Edkins died in April 1905, and in view of the urgent need to finish the translation no successor was elected for him. A meeting of the four remaining translators was scheduled for the summer of 1905 in Beidaihe. Sheffield and Wherry were anxious about meeting the new associates,121 even though at least Pearce had already expressed sed “his desire to work in cordial sympathy" with Sheffield and Wherry. 122

117 See Goodall 1954, 163. Seech. 10.5.2. 119 Letter from Pearce to LMS of March 14, 1902. 120 See ABS Report 1905, 152; BFBS Report 1903, 436; 1904, 412; 1905, 412. 121 “Dr. Wherry and I work together in entire sympathy and we hope our new associ­ ates will accept without too much destructive criticism what wehave already accom­ plished" (letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of July 19, 1905). 122 Sheffield \n ABS Report 1903, 177.

250

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

It turned out that none of the former conflicts stood in the way o f the com mittee’s w ork,123 so that at this meeting the four Gospels, Acts, and Romans were translated in daily session of three hours each .124 The Bible societies published this part in the same year, 1905.

ILLUSTRATION 5

Photograph o f Sheffield's (X ie 謝 ）manuscript o f

1

： John

5 :1 1 - 1 2 ,

corrected by Lloyd

(Luo 羅 > ,W herry (H ui 忠 )，and Pearce (Pi 皮 ，first wrongly labeled in the second col­ um n with Bi 审 ，but then corrected by w riting over Ai 艾 for Edkins in the last colum n). Note that Sheffield and W herry use shangzhu 上 K for “G o d ,” w hich is corrected to shangdi by Lloyd and W herry. (M anuscript was exhibited in Peking in 1 9 3 7 and wrongly labeled with “Ju d e,” courtesy o f Am erican Bible Society A rchives, New Y ork.)

121 In a report to the ABS Sheffield rem arked, in total contrast to statem ents about the earlier com m ittee: “It only remains to be said that the m em bers o f the com m ittee have worked together in great unity, and the work o f each has been carefully revised by all the m em bers o f the com m ittee" (quoted in ABS Report 1 9 0 7 , 1 5 0 ) . 124 See ABS Report

1 907, 150.

U n io n V e r s i o n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

251

At a second meeting in Beidaihe in 1906, the translation of the NT into H igh Wenli was brought to completion on August 21, 1906,125 and pub­ lished just in time for the general conference in Shanghai in 1907. The committee met again a few days before the conference to consider a few last changes to this edition.126

Il l u s t r a t io n 6 :

H igh W enli Union Version New Testament translation com m ittee 1905 (from left to right): D .Z . Sheffield, Zhuge, G uo, L . Lloyd, J. W herry, T .W . Pearce, Zhao (in Missionary Herald 1906, 154).

11.3.4. Chinese Assistants Chinese assistants were o f course present at all these meetings and played an essential role, yet again their names hardly appear in the writings o f the missionaries. Only one photograph o f the committee o f revisers127—taken 125 See Spillett 1975, 43. 126 See ABS Report 1907, 150. 127 Published in American Bible Society Record 1906, cover for the January edition; and in Missionary Herald 1906, 154.

252

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 1,

during die session in 1905—shows not only the Western but also die Chi­ nese members of the committee with their (transliterated) surnames: these are Zhuge, Guo, Zhuang, and Zhao. Guo, Wherry’s assistant and an elder in Wherry's church, was the only one who was mentioned often and praised in reports of Wherry and his mission station.128 11.3.4.\, Textual Textual Basis and Principles of Translation As to the translation principles of the committee, Wherry, who succeeded trans Sheffield as the chairman of the classical OT translation, explained tfiem explicitly: Being Scripture it is a truism that nothing can be added and that nothing contained in it can be taken away. But it is also to be remembered that if the spirit is conditioned by the form in the original, it is also conditioned by the form of the translation; and that as suitableness of form is secured in different languages by different devices, a really excellent translation can never correspond more closely with the original than the two lan­ guage. themselves correspond. ... Seeing then that exact correspondence is not attainable, what are the important characteristics that we should look for in an ideal translation of the Bible into Chinese? Near, or at, the very top, in our enumeration, we may safely place per­ spicuity. ... Whatever toil, patience and learning a translator may show, they will all go for naught when it is unintelligible to the reader for whom it is intended The ideal nanslation will be in easy, smooth, rhythmical style, a style equally acceptable to the cultured and uncultured reader ... • Again, the ideal translation will religiously avoid the evils of extreme literalism. It should be a matter of course that a Chinese version should be in accordance with the genius of the Chinese tongue. ... Chinese has been cast in a mould all its own, and, shaped and polished as it has been by centuries of isolation from the rest of the world, it refuses to take on the subtle niceties of western tongues. These must be compensated for by the subtleties and niceties of its own . ...

128 See Report o f Peking Station 1911：1917/18：1918：Personal Report o f J. Wherry 1912/13：1915/16; 1917: 1918 (DOHPC. USA). The part about Bible translation in this last report (1918) closes with the words: **1 can not close this most important part of my report without an expression of my great indebtedness to my writer. El­ der Kuo [Guo], for the sympathy he has shown in this work, and for the ability and faithfulness with which he has done his part in it. There is no more essential, im­ perative need for China, rulers and people, than the grand truths of the Christian Scriptures; and we trust that our version of the Old Testament, which owes so much to Mr. Kuo. will have no small share in imparting these truths."

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

253

Another current error is to be guarded against. The ideal translation will not insist on always translating the same Hebrew and Greek word by the same Chinese character The Bible is an ancient book. An ideal Chinese Bible should not lack a suggestion of this antiquity. This may be imparted by adopting for it, to a certain extent, the style of the Chinese classics. ... But it will be well, for the most part at least, for perspicuity’s sake, to reject uncommon words and words not well defined, and even common words in archaic meanings. Above all should be discarded set Confucian phrases and ex­ pressions which, however adequate and appropriate they may seem at first sight to embody Scriptural ideas, yet by their association with Con­ fucian rites or modes of thought, naturally and inevitably suggest to clas­ sical scholars, erroneous, and sometimes, harmful ideas.129 A comparison of these translation principles with the principles of the Easy Wenli translation reveals differences of great magnitude. Whereas the Easy Wenli translators tried to shape the Chinese language into the form dictated by the Greek text, the High Wenli translators aimed at the exact opposite. Their more interactive understanding of translation did not allow a me­ chanical rendering from one language into another. Indeed, they showed a much higher regard for the Chinese language which, according to their understanding, was perfectly able to express all that had to be expressed in the translation of the Bible. The warning against aConfticianizing" must be understood in the con­ text of the immediate situation of the translators. To distinguish their work from the Easy Wenli translation, they needed to choose the highest possible style, which was patterned on the Chinese canonical books, a body of lit­ erature which in the views of most missionaries seemed to represent hereti­ cal teaching. Additionally, they were only too aware of the Term Question and the problems and splits it had caused, something that was to be avoided at all costs in the context of a union version. The High Wenli’s first chapter of John reveals that the translators used some very uncommon terms which are not found in most other versions. One of them is xie 偕 一“together”一which in verse 1 has the connota­ tion “as a son with his father,” thus lending an additional meaning to the sec­ ond part of John 1:1: “the Logos was with God (as with his father)" (道偕上帝 )•130 129 Wherry 1912, 279ff. 110 Xie had already been employed by the versions of Morrison/Milne and Marshman/ Lassar (see ch. 5.2.4), but these were not consulted during this project. Though Sheffield, the first draft translator of this part, wrote about his translation of the

254

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

A term that up to this point every translation had used in John 1:3 for ndr v r a (“all things"), wanwu 萬物 一“die myriad creatures," was exchanged by the High Wenli translators widi wanyou 萬 有 —“the myriad existing be­ ings (or: all creation). The reason for choosing the latter was that wanyou emphasized die con^>leteness of creation even more than the more common term wanwu. Verse 16’s 恩之有加無已 一 “the never ending increase of grace”一for Xdpiv d v r i xapixcx; (“grace i^xm grace”）shows the High Wenli translators* endeavor to achieve a literary style of language. All other translations, with the exception of the Delegates’ Version (恩寵益增 一“grace, increasing”), attempted to reconstruct the Greek syntax. But whereas the rendering of the Delegates’ Version tries to paraphrase the meaning of the Greek in simple terms, the High Wenli Union Version employs a Chinese proverb—yow jia wuyi 有 加 無 已 —thus aiming at a more indigenous and literary style. A term adopted from the Delegates’ Version (but also from the Peking Version) is renshen 人身 一“human body"—for “flesh” in verse 14. Accord­ ing to the principles of the High Wenli translators, the translation with to u 肉 一“flesh (meat)”一or any derivation thereof, would have been a - lheralism," as the Chinese term mu has the basic meaning of “meat” instead of "(sinful) flesh.” Even though single terms may reappear, the High Wenli Union Version was not a revision of the Delegates ’ Version as many had hoped for. The two versions differ widely firom each other, especially in those cases where the Delegates' Version translators translated according to their liberal un­ derstanding of textual fidelity. The basis text of the High Wenli translation was die Greek text under­ lying the English Revised Versiont as displayed in verses 24 and 27.131 11.3.6. Revision Work The High Wenli NT went through no substantial revisions until after the publication of the complete Bible in 1919.132 Nevertheless, some editions Gospel of John: “I have five versions at hand which I consult verse by verse" (letter to ABCFM of Feb. 6, 1892) this did not include those early translations. Sheffield’s close associate Goodrich (1912, 587) expressly stated that he had never seen any of these editions, which he would have had they been in the possession of Sheffield. It could have originated from the version by Goddard in which xie is also used (see ch. 5.2.4). 131 Verse 24: 其人乃法利并人所进—"these people were sent by the Pharisees." and verse 2 7 :後 我 而 來 一“(he who) came after me" (cf. ch. 8.1.2).

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

255

contained minor alterations, like the 1919 and 1920 edition's temporary exchange of taichu 太 初 一 “beginning”一in John 1:1 and 2 for yuanshi 元始 of earlier and later editions. This was apparently done in a temporary effort to harmonize it with the term of the Mandarin Union Version.m 11.4. Mandarin Translation By 1898, at the time of its first meeting, the Mandarin committee had al­ ready undergone immense change. It now consisted of only five instead of seven members: Mateer (chairman), Goodrich, Woods, Clarke, and Owen. The vacant position of Bramfitt had not been filled, and Hykes was about to resign. 11.4.1. Proceedings and First Meeting of Committee The individual preliminary work was organized in similar fashion to the other two committees: on especially prepared paper, each translator pre­ pared his draft of an assigned part of the NT parallel to blank columns for the other translators and—a deviation from the other versions—to the al­ ready filled-in text of the Peking Version. T h i s was sent to the other translators, who then could add their amendments and suggestions. By 1898, the progress of the work was already fairly advanced. As difficult as it had been to elect translators for the Mandarin committee, those who were finally recruited took their work very seriously.135 Goodrich and 132

See. ch. 13.1.4.

133

For a discussion of taichu, see Zetzsche 1995b, 46.

IM

Cf. Illustration 9. This itself was a breech with the principles of the 1890 general conference, which prescribed the Peking Version, the translation by G. John, and the Nanking Version to be used equally (see ch. 10.2). The Mandarin Union Version translators bad (correctly) interpreted this as a mere political move towards the pres­ sure of the NBSS (see ibid.).

135

Goodrich wrote in a letter to the ABCFM of Aug. 1, 1894: aPerhaps I may add an­ other word, viz., that I should have written earlier, but that, having lost so much time from Bible translation work, on account of sore eyes to other duties.” Owen had pre­ dicted in a letter to the LMS of Aug. 10, 1891: MMy duties in connection with the revi­ sion of the Chinese Mandarin Bible will tax me heavily and leave me but little time even for the work of the station," and confirmed that in another letter of Aug. 13, 1896: “But for Bible Revision, which occupies so much of my time, I could do the work easily. But with that Revision on my hands I find it impossible to do much daily preaching." The Report ofTungchow [Dengzhou] (Shandong) 1894 (DOHPC, USA), Mateer、 mission station, read: **During the year Dr. C.W. Mateer's work being al­ most entirely that of translating, to which he had been assigned by the mission.”

256

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

Owen had already translated about three fourths of the NT; Woods and Clarke, new members of the committee, had translated their respective por­ tions;136 and Bramfltt, diough not part of the committee anymore, had also finished his section. Before the translators met they had high expectations for the meeting's outcome; the reality of the first meeting, which took place in Mateer’s home in Dengzhou from September 7 through November 19, proved to be very frustrating. The only result was the translation of Acts, which was published in a tentative edition by the three Bible societies in 1899. Owen gave his impression of the committee's meeting: We accomplished very little. After two months and a half of very hard work, we just managed to finish a tentative revision of Acts! We had hoped that we at least should revise John, Acts and Hebrews; but first John was thrown overboard, then Hebrews, and it sometimes looked as if nothing would be done. We were an ill-assorted Committee. ... Prog­ ress with these conditions was exceedingly slow, and the work done, I fear, will prove unsatisfactorily.137 (Underline by Owen.) 11.4.2. Constitution of Committee The constitution of the Mill-assorted committee" at this first meeting was also portrayed by Goodrich. His long description gives a good idea of the dynamics and the most important points of discussion and consideration among the translators: Dr. Mateer was a fine speaker of the Shantung [Shandong] dialect, inde­ fatigable in his preparation, anxious to secure a translation of the Bible which all could understand, as uncompromising as he was loving, a block of granite ... and withal a born leader of men. Mr. Owen was a rare speaker of Pekingese, to whom it was a delight to listen as he preached, or gave Bible lessons to his students. ... Mr. Owen knew what he believed, was a man of firm convictions and able in debate. He, too, came to the meeting splendidly prepared. Dr. Woods was a man of culture and refinement, of dignified bearing and rare

IJ6 See ABS Report 1899, 106. In a letter to the secretaries of the three Bible Societies of June 3, 1898, Mateer remarked on the upcoming meeting: “Most of the responsi­ bility ... will fall on Mr. Owen, Dr. Goodrich and myself, seeing that Mr. Bramfitt is absent and most of the others new to the work and not fully prepared on the portaken up." 137 r from Owen to LMS of Dec. 23, 1898. Cf. letter from Mateer to APM of Jan. 14, 1899 (DOHPC, USA), where he described tbe meeting in similar terms.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

257

courtesy, and withal not giving up easily results he had reached after hard labor in his study. He was our best Greek scholar, and knew the precise meaning of every Greek word and particle. Mr. Clarke was a good expositor, desirous of giving the right meaning, quiet in debate, and working for harmony But now we sit down to our task ten men, including our teachers. ... We are trying to settle the text of the Book of Acts. How simple it looks in English! But almost every verse means a battle. It is not easy to under­ stand each other with our quintuple sets of pronunciation and tones, but we all understand English. A verse is read and the debate begins, some­ times as follows: “The style is too low, just what the coolies on the street use." “But we want a style that even the coolies can understand. The trouble with our Bibles is that they have been translated for the learned, and not for the common people … “This phrase is quite impossible in our section; it is a classical phrase with us, and would never be understood.n "But it isn’t what the Greek says. We are translating the original language of the Bible, and it is our duty to give the meaning correctly, and without a paraphrase." “But I maintain this phrase gives the correct sense. We are not here to render the same Greek word always by the same Chinese character. I hold that if Luke [author of Acts] had been writing in Chi­ nese, he would have used this phrase." “And I am sure he would have never written it. I wish the members of the Committee to note carefully just what the Greek word means. It never has the sense which we are asked to give it, while the translation I have given renders the word per­ fectly." “That would do very well if we were writing in the classical style, but we are making a Mandarin version of the Scriptures, brethren, to be understood by everybody, when read out from the pulpit." “Yes, we are making a Mandarin version, but we must render the original into a style that is chaste and crisp or our version will be laughed at.” “I want to say right here, that if I had known we were to translate the Bible into a classical style, I would never have allowed my name to be on the Committee. I have very important work waiting for me, that I ought to be doing at this moment." “I beg, brethren, that you will speak in Chi­ nese. We are carrying on our debate in English, and here are five native brethren sitting by quite ignorant of our remarks, who might help us to the proper rendering, if we spoke in Chinese." We all agree, and pres­ ently are talking again in the language in which we were bom.138 Goodrich's apparently very honest description of the committee's work above points out three major problems: (1) differences in translation prin­ ciples; (2) the lack of a standard form of Mandarin and thus differences in ,M Goodrich 1913, 378ff.

258

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

perception of what written Mandarin should be like; and (3) the inability to communicate in Chinese, owing to the substantial differences in the Chi­ nese dialects of the translators, and thus the effective exclusion of the Chi­ nese members from the translation work. 11.4.2.1. Western Translators Mateer, in Goodrich’s description the advocate of die low style of Manda­ rin, owed his dominant position in the committee to his strong will, which would not accept any opinions other than his own.139 The 1907 edition of the NT had, according to Owen, “more Mateer in it than of any one else."140 Mateer, whose knowledge of colloquial Mandarin was “second to none,”141 envisioned a Mandarin for the Union Version that was to be “plainer language of common life," understood not only by the reader but also the listener. It was to distinguish itself from the literary productions in so-called Mandarin, such as the great novels of the Ming and Qing dynas­ ties or the Shengyu，、 *1 whose writers “could not resist the temptation" of employing classical phrases.143 Mateer published articles about style (1900a) and terminology (1900b) in Bible translation right before the sec­ ond meeting of the Mandarin committee to give his position a stronger, more public stand. In the first article, he advocated a Mandarin formed after the spoken language in which only widely used (tongxing 通 行 ）terms should be employed, rather than classical terms. Certain terms, however, though unknown in some areas of Mandarin-speaking China, might have to be chosen anyway if indispensable or used by the greatest majority. This concept explains how the use of northern or Shandong expressions in Bible translation came about, a feature which today is strongly criticized.144 Mateer had disagreements about his concept of Mandarin not only within his committee, but also with prominent missionaries like Chalmers, Faber, 1,9 "He believed in himself and in his work, and could not, tl^refore, easily bring him­ self to yield to others” (Owen 1908). 140 Owen 1908. His later colleague Bailer (1908, 632) wrote: “The Revised New Tes­ tament is stamped with the impress of his personality and painstaking work." 141 Owen 1908. 142 See ch. 2, fn. 55. M, See Mateer 1900a, 33If. 144 See ch. 14, fn. 53. Goodrich (1923, 29) wrote about Mateer’s inclination for the Shandong dialect: “Dr. Mateer, our first chairman, thought Shantung【 Shandong] was the fountainhead of Mandarin. Was it not the home of the great sage? And Con­ fucius was a word master."

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

259

Martin, or Edkins, the latter two being among the translators of the Peking Version, whose style Mateer criticized as being too high.145 Owen strove for a high style of Mandarin.146 Mateer and Owen were the great opponents within the committee during the translation of the NT, and the fact that Owen was personally present only at this first meeting proba­ bly proved beneficial to the dynamics of the committee.147 Goodrich, although a great admirer and associate of Mateer, promoted a Mandarin which was somewhere between Mateer’s and Owen’s concepts. It had to be colloquial, yet “high enough to be chaste,” and it was to be a written language (as opposed to spoken language in written form).148 Gcxxirich also put great emphasis on the importance of textual faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew.149 Neither Woods nor Clarke played significant roles in the translation process, and they retired from the committee in 1904 and 1901 respec­ tively. The small share that especially Clarke had can already be estimated from Goodrich's description above,130 and is only emphasized by a later comment of Goodrich where he described Clarke as “a capital man, a good Greek scholar, but not very strong on Chinese.”151 Ada Haven Mateer (d. 1936) (ABCFM), Mateer’s wife, became the only woman actively involved in the translation of the Union Version by compiling a Greek-Chinese index for the translation of the NT into Manda­ rin.152

145 See Hyatt 1976, 200. 144 Sheffield, well informed about the proceedings of the committee through his asso­ ciation with Goodrich, wrote: “Mr. Owen of Peking stood even more than Dr. Goodrich for clean Kuan Hua [guanhua 官 話 —Mandarin]" (letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of Dec. 15, 1898). 147 Again, Sheffield remarked: “Dr. Mateer is constitutionally unable to see things ex­ cept from his point of vision, and in Owen he met a man who had as deep roots to his convictions as him seir (letter ftom Sheffield to ABCFM of Dec. 15, 1898). 148 See Goodrich 1918, 552f. 149 See Goodrich 1912, 589; 1918, 552. 150 Seech. 10.5.3.1. 151 Letter to ABCFM of July 11, 1901. 152 See Bailer 1907, 31. Hyatt (1976, 220) calls her an Massistant Testament translator," and in her obituary (Chinese Recorder 1936, 645) it says “she was closely associated with him [Mateer] in his extensive Bible translations and other literary work."

260

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

11.4.2.2. Chinese Assistants Each Mandarin translator also had one Chinese assistant, who cooperated with him to prepare the draft translations and corrections and accompanied the missionary to the committee meetings. Here the committee work with all Westerners and Chinese usually occupied the mornings, whereas the afternoons were reserved for the preparation work of each Western mis­ sionary with his Chinese assistant. The importance of the Chinese assistants was even more evident in the Mandarin than in the classical translations as Mandarin was a form of lan­ guage essentially without any literature as a model.153 Though this fact naturally limited the Chinese assistant’s literary abilities in Mandarin as well as that of the foreigners,154 the increasing role that they were given in the process of translation nevertheless shows that their contributions were highly valued. The Chinese translators were rarely mentioned in the reports of the first few years，but as the work progressed, their importance was increasingly valued, so much so that eventually—under the new chairman Goodrich during the OT translation—they were given an equal vote with the foreigners.155 Sydenstricker, a Bible translator associated with a Chinese assistant and for a short time a member of the Mandarin Union Version committee him­ self,156 criticized the position of the Chinese assistants:

13)

For the often-quoted novels of the Ming and Qing dynasties, see cb. 1, fh. 4. See Zi 1981, 102. This Chinese author even goes so far as to say that the Mandarin of the Chinese translators was inferior to that of their foreign colleagues.

ISS

“At the beginning, though, each westerner was accompanied by his hsien-sheng [xiansheng 先7| :.】(a teacher expert in Chinese language—Kuan Hua [guanhua 官 話 一“Mandarin”】)，who also hailed from his area; only the former had the right to vote for or against a rendering of a passage. This was changed so that the Chinese had votes as well. No one of the latter knew Greek or Hebrew or even English, but at least each one knew his own tongue and could understand the problem of putting into standard Chinese, rather than into a dialectal variant, a phrase of a sentence of the original. All too often Mr. X from Sze-chuan [Sichuan] or Mr. Y from Hunan would insist that his was the only pure brand of kuan-hua to the muted exasperation of his occidental colleagues. After 1908 or ‘09 this was changed as noted above. The Chinese from Sze-chuan or Hunan or Kiangsu [Jiangsu] would sometimes vote against his English or American associate” (Coryell, daughter of Goodrich, ms” the author is indebted to Dr. Sun Xiaoping, Hamburg/Shanghai, for making this ms. available to him).

156

See ch. 13.2.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

261

The reviser sits at the table with his Chinese writer at hand, generally a foreign-trained man, either in a mission school or in some other way, and tells the writer what to put down. The scribe, accustomed to look at the text in some degree from a foreign point of view and anxious to re­ main in good favor with his employer, becomes largely his servant and amanuensis and has not the courage to offer objections to the foreign Chinese that he has to write. This is by no means an imaginary or over­ drawn picture.157 Though this description may have been influenced by Sydenstricker’s anger against the Union Version committee,158 the dependence of the Chinese translator on the Western missionary was surely true to a certain extent. The relatively low estimation that Chinese assistants experienced through­ out the history of Chinese Bible translation is only too clearly displayed by the fact that they are so sparingly mentioned, and if so, then usually not by name.159 Exceptions to this convention were Mateer and Goodrich, who both seemed to honor their assistants more than usual. Goodrich wrote about Mateer’s teachers: Dr. Mateer, in the work of rendering the Scriptures into a universal Mandarin, had two exceptional fine teachers. The first was Mr. Tsou Li Wen [Zou Liwen 鄰立文 】，an ordained pastor, who left his parish to en­ gage in this work. Mr. Tsou was trained by Dr. Mateer in his college, receiving his theological training under Drs. Nevius, Mateer and others. He was a man of beautiful spirit, discriminating mind, and a fine sense of language. He was also a man of indomitable perseverance. After a strenuous day’s work of eight hours or more, he would often toil by himself far into the night, seeking for some phrase of phrases which ex­ pressed more exactly the meaning of the original. And before the final review, both he and my own lamented teacher (Chang Hsi Hsin [Zhang Xixin 張洗心 ，unfortunately Zhang's exact date of death is not known]) would bestow the greatest pains, in the hours when they should have been sleeping, in a carefiil inspection of the work. Thus did Mr. Tsou 157 Sydenstricker 1912, 593. ,5* See ch. 13.2. 159 Cf. Wickeri 1995, 140f. A review of Broomhall's The Bible in China (published 1934) said: one especially regrets the omission of the names of all Chinese translators ... surely the time has come to name these scholars and to record some­ thing of the thrilling story of their lives and services" (Chinese Recorder 1935, 50). In Broomhall's defense, the present author has also encountered the same problem in that many of the names are simply not recorded anywhere. Nevertheless, it is inter­ esting that in 1935 a new evaluation of the Chinese contribution prevailed.

262

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

toil, while separated from his family for long periods of time; his work of Bible revision being as truly a labor of love as that of any member of the committee. But alas! Mr. Tsou’s life burned out all too soon in his exhausting la­ bors. But how I should like to see his crown, and his shining face! Happily for the work, Dr. Mateer had another scholar, trained also in his school, Mr. Wang Yuan Teh [Wang Yuande 工元德 】，a young man of keen, incisive, logical mind, who had read all the best books in the Mandarin colloquial. Mr. Wang was quick to see any fault in the struc­ ture of a sentence, and insistent on its being put right. He also worked most faithfully in this translation, refusing offers which came to him of a salary several times the amount he received. I think he was held partly by Dr. Mateer’s personality, which drew him strongly, and partly by his own love for the work itself. When the chariot of fire came for Dr. Mateer, he left us, much to our regret and loss.160 The uncommonly high esteem that Mateer had for Zou can be seen in the preface to his Course o f Mandarin Lessons (1892, p. VII), where he wrote in the acknowledgments: My first and chiefest acknowledgments are due to my Chinese assistant, Rev. Tso Li Wen, who has given fully four years of constant and dili­ gent labor to the collection and preparation of the Chinese text. He has also investigated with me dialectic differences and has given unstinted and enthusiastic labor to the work in all its details.161 Wang Yuande (also known under his zi 字 [style] Xuanchen 宣 忱 ）from Changle (Shandong) was of especially great importance. He not only acted as Mateer’s assistant from 1903-1908, but he also started to study theology after the death of Mateer and made his own translation of the New Testa­ ment (published 1933).162 Wang’s participation in the NT translation, though it was only for a very limited time, is especially emphasized by Chinese authors who pay great reverence to him.163 The preface to his NT,

140 Quoted in Fisher 1911, 259f. 161 Zhang Xixin and Zou Liwen were especially thanked in the preface of the1907 NT, even though their names are not mentioned: “The faithful help of Chinese assistants is acknowledged; one teacher was connected with the work since its inception [Zhang], while another [Zou] served for twelve years." 162 Seech. 14.2.1. l6i See Yu Ligong 1979, 124f.; Liu 1979b, 96. Yu (125) reported that in Shandong Wang was referred to as the “Pope of Shandong” （l丨 丨 终 i 教电>，and Zhu (1941, 73) referred to him as to “Elder W ang"(工長老>.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

263

the only authentic description of the Union Version committee work by a Chinese known to the author, includes the following description: Every summer the translated drafts were collected, and we met in a room of the Dongshan Sanitarium ( 束山安歇樓 )IMin Yantai. Everybody contributed his opinions. At times there was mutual assistance in proof­ reading and a sanguine feeling nearing affection; sometimes there was stubbornness and confusion; occasionally someone would angrily pound the table, raise his voice, and lose his temper. Then we would go back to the beginning with a smile and try to decide on the final draft. We would discuss for several days with unflagging perseverance and anima­ tion without reaching a decision, then the main body of Western mis­ sionaries would make the final decision. But it was difficult to follow the crudeness of the [Greek] original and to work on the style at the same time. That was the greatest problem. I experienced this without missing a day for a full five years. When the book was completed and published in China (today’s Mandarin Union Version), parts of it were lacking in beauty, and this did not fully satisfy me. (author’s translation) A photograph of the Mandarin committee members Mateer, Goodrich, Bailer, Lewis, and their respective assistants contains the names of the Chinese as well. Besides the above-mentioned Wang Yuande and Zhang, Bailer’s assistant is given as Liu Dacheng 劉 大 成 （ d. 1918)165 and Lewis’s assistant as Li Chunfan 李 春 蕃 （ d. 1938).166 The names of the assistants of Woods, Clarke, and Bramfitt, however, are unfortunately not known. Owen’s teacher during the time of his committee work in China is also not known by name; only his assistant during his work in England is known as Cheng Jingyi.167

164 The sanitarium of the CIM, built in 1879. 165 An obituary of Liu in China’s Millions (1919, 55) has: “For sixteen years he had been associated with Mr. F.W. Bailer in the revision of the Mandarin Bible ... and had rendered most valuable service. He was a quiet, unassuming man, who lived a consistent life, and has left behind a record of faithful, conscientious labour. The Chinese revised version will owe a good many of its felicitous phrases to him, as also a general improvement both in style and expression in not a few passages.” 146 The BFBS Report 1939 (177) stated: “The record would be incomplete without ref­ erence to the death of the Rev. Li Ch'wen-fan [Li Chunfan], who served inconspicu­ ously but very helpfully with the Committee of Translators of the Union Version Mandarin Bible. He was a Szechwan [Sichuan] man, but after finishing the work of translation he continued as an active minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the lower Yangtze valley.” 167 Seech. 11.4.3.1.

264

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

Illu s tr a tio n 7

：

M andarin Union Version com m ittee (from left to right): F. W . Bailer, Liu Dacheng, C . G oodrich, Zhang Xixin, C. W . M ateer, Wang Yuande, S. Lew is, Li Chunfan. (U ndated photograph, printed in the Chinese Recorder 1906 [facing page 355】，courtesy o f A m eri­ can Bible Society A rchives, New Y ork.)

11.4.3. Continued Meetings of Committee The second meeting from July 11 through September 23, 1899, in Tong­ zhou, Goodrich’s station, brought the Gospels o f M ark and John to a close. A letter o f M ateer again attests to the unchanged frustration experienced at the meeting: We finished last Saturday the revision of Mark and John. I found it a very trying work which quite used me up. ... I had no idea before I be­ gan this work of translation what a trying work it would be, and how much labor it would involve. If I had known all I fear I should not have

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

265

been willing to enter upon it. As it is I cannot retreat though as a matter of choice I would much prefer to be engaged in other things.168 In the preface of the Gospel of John which, like the Gospel of Mark, was published in a separate edition in 1900, the lack of a standard form of Mandarin, as well as compromises in the committee’s attempt for fidelity, were pointed out: The Committee have been elected from widely separated districts, from Peking in the North to Kuei-cho [Guizhou] in the South-West, and the first and greatest difficulty has been in harmonizing the various Manda­ rin dialects. The utmost endeavour has been made to translate the Scrip­ tures in language everywhere current. Sometimes this has not been quite possible, in which case words and phrases have been sought that have the widest currency. In a few instances parallel readings have been given. ... A second difficulty has been to make a chaste translation, thoroughly colloquial, while yet keeping close to the Original. The Committee have done to their utmost this difficult and almost impossible task. As in all other editions, the fellow missionaries were invited to criticize the translation: This tentative version is now sent out to the missionaries in China, with the request that it be carefully examined and compared with the original. Criticisms will be welcomed by the Committee and faithfully considered in preparing the final version. Only Mateer, Goodrich, and Woods were present at this second meeting. Clarke and Owen were both absent on furlough in England. The next meeting was scheduled to take place in the fall of 1900, but, because of the Boxer uprising, had to be delayed until December. It took place in Shanghai and lasted seven months, from December 4, 1900, through June 1，1901. The outcome of this meeting was the translation of Matthew and Luke, which were published in separate, tentative editions in 1901. The plan to also translate Romans did not materialize. Once again only a part of the committee could assemble. Owen was back from his furlough and expected to take part in the committee work;169 but his mis­ sion society, the LMS, thought it more important for him to reorganize the LMS’s mission work in North China after the Boxer uprising. Woods and Clarke attended the meeting, but both had to leave early, Woods for a fiir-

168 Letter from Mateer to APM of Sept. 27, 1899 (DOHPC, USA). ,w Sfx ABS Report 丨 901，103.

266

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

lough to the United States and Clarke for his mission station in Guizhou. The two remaining translators were M ateer and G oodrich, and Bailer, who attended for the first time.

Illu s tr a tio n 8

：

W estern m em bers o f M andarin Union Version com m ittee during its meeting in Shanghai (from left to right): H .M . W oods. S .R . Clarke, C .W . M ateer, C. G oodrich, F .W . Bai­ ler. (C ourtesy o f Am erican Bible Society Archives, New Y ork.)

Bailer’s idea o f translation was similar to G oodrich's. He emphasized the need o f colloquial Mandarin, but warned against a loss o f all stylistic m er­ its. M ateer had called for tongxing guanhua 通 行 官 話 一 “widely current M andarin"170—but Bailer supported a timian guanhua 體 面 官 話 一 “digni­ fied (handsome) M andarin.” 171 Despite all differences o f opinion, this group o f three—M ateer, G oodrich, and Bailer—was to form the nucleus of

170 S e e c h . 11.4.2.1. 171 See Bailer 1907, 25.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

267

the NT translation work thereafter, thus continuing the cooperation that they had started long before.172 A change in the work of the committee becomes apparent in the more positive outlook of Mateer after the meeting in Shanghai: I was in Shanghai engaged in translation work for nearly seven months— which was very longer [sic] than I dreamed of when I went there. The translation work is really very tough and hard work. We did the work better in my opinion than we did it before.173 The same group of revisers met again at the end of the same year. Clarke had retired because of Bailer’s participation,174 Woods was still in America, and Owen was once again not permitted by the LMS to attend the meeting. Nevertheless, most of the manuscript work of Owen, Woods, and Bramfitt was used in the revision work.175 The meeting took place in Zhifii 之苯 (today’s Yantai in Shandong) from December 16, 1901, through March 31, 1902. Because of the severe illness of Bailer’s wife,176 the time of the meeting had to be rescheduled from October and the meeting place from Dengzhou to Bailer’s home town, meaning “no small sacrifice” to Mateer and Goodrich.177 The Epistles from Romans to Philippians were translated, which was actually more than planned,178 and according to Mateer the translators were “getting on finely,”179 a statement that differs greatly from reports of their earlier proceedings. The translated Epistles were published tentatively in one volume in 1903.

172 See ch. 10.5.3. 173 See letter from Mateer to APM of June 18, 1901 (DOHPC, USA). 174 See ch. 10.5.3.1. After he left the committee, Clarke started a Bible translation into the language of the Buyi 布依，an ethnic group which lives in Guizhou. In 1904 the Gospel of Matthew was published in this language by the BFBS (see Spillett 1975, 215). 175 See Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Records 1907, 280. 176 She eventually died in 1909 of “general debility" after years of illness. 177 See ABS Report 1902, 114. Cf. letter from Mateer to APM of Dec. 15, 1901 (DOHPC, USA). 178 It was only intended to translate Romans through Ephesians. 179 Quoted in ABS Report 1902, 114.

268

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

11.4.3.1. Owen and Cheng Jingyi Owen had to return to England in 1902 on account of his wife’s poor health;180 though he did not come back, his involvement in the translation process continued. As soon as he arrived in England, the BFBS announced that he would continue his translation work with the assistance of a Chinese scholar.181 This scholar was Cheng Jingyi 誠 靜 怡 （1881-1939)，a young graduate from Peking who was to become the most prominent leader of the new Chinese church.182 Cheng stayed with Owen in London from July 1903 until August 1906, and was, as well as Owen, supported by the BFBS and aided by a contribution of the NBSS.183 The ABS was also asked to contribute to the costs of Cheng’s salary, but chose not to do so on the ad­ vice of Hykes,184 Mateer,185 and Goodrich.186 Especially Mateer, of course, had good reason to object to this plan because of Owen’s differing ideas on translation. On the other hand, the BFBS and the NBSS had good reasons for securing Owen’s work: the number of British and American translators had become increasingly unequal. Mateer, Goodrich, and Woods were all Americans, and Lewis, also an American, was about to be elected. On the British side, Clarke had resigned, and only Bailer (besides Owen) was still involved in the translation. In addition, the British Bible societies had tra­ ditionally always supported Chinese translations in a more scholarly style, as in the case of the Delegates’ Version versus the version by Bridgman/ Culbertson, or the lower classical translation by John versus Burdon/ Blodget’s translation. Following this tradition, it was only consistent to support Owen and his ideas for a more literary style of Mandarin.

180 See letter firom Owen to LMS of Feb. 8. 1902. ,s, See BFBS Report 1903, 436. 182 He later became president of the China Continuation Committee ( 屮華输 f7•委辦會) in 1913, chairman of the 1922 National Christian Conference (个國大會)，general secretary of the National Christian Council of China ( 屮華个 闽基督教協進會）in 1924, and general secretary of the Church of Christ in China ( 屮華基督教會）in 1934. Bays (1996. 311) remarks that Cheng “came to hold every high office in the mainstream Sino-foreign Protestant establishment in the 1920's and 1930’s.” Set BFBS Report 1904. 413. 184 See letter from Hykes to ABS from May 25, 1903. 185 Mateer talked to ABS officials in America, and told them that he was hoping to se­ cure Lewis (see Hills 1965, 60). 186 Quoted in letter from Hykes to ABS from May 25, 1903.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

269

Owen’s and Cheng’s translation work in England commenced with the next book to be revised by the committee, the book of Colossians,187 and eventually included a revision of the whole NT.188 Their translations were before the committee for its last three meetings, and in every single report of the meetings, Mateer made a special effort of emphasizing that in all decisions Owen’s vote had been counted. The importance of this repeated emphasis must be interpreted as an effort to give the translation the appearance of a committee work, a committee that in its original form was to consist of seven members.189 Another point of consideration was surely tiie desire to please the British side and not give any opportunity to make the translation look like an American effort. Cheng's influence on the Union Version was sometimes overestimated, which must be explained by his later position of prominence.190 He h counted it as high among the many honors which had come to him he had a share in giving China the Union Version Mandarin Bible which has had such an immeasurable influence upon the whole life of this na­ tion. 191 After Cheng returned to China in 1906, Owen also retired from the service of the committee and became professor of Chinese in London in 1908. 11.4.4. Completion and First Revision of New Testament After the meeting in Zhifu, Mateer left for America on furlough. He was followed by Goodrich, who justified his own leave by saying that “the work of Bible translation must wait while he [Mateer] is absent,”192 thus once again emphasizing Mateer’s leading role in the committee. One of Mateer’s reasons for going back to the United States was to confer with the 117 See BFBS Report 1904, 413. See BFBS Report 1906, 387. 189 After the second meeting in 1899, with only Mateer, Goodrich, and Woods attend­ ing, Mateer revealed how important the number of members attending the meetings was by noting: uBeing a minority of the Committee many parts of our work will have to pass under a subsequent review of the full committee" (ABS Report 1900, 123) 190 Murray (1953, 166) even writes: ..." in actual fact I believe that the late Dr. Ch'eng Ching-Yi was entrusted with the task of giving a final polish to the language of the [Union Version] Tentative Version, and he did this without reference to the Greek." This assun^>tion is not correct. 191 Chinese Recorder 1939, 692. 191 Letter from Goodrich to ABCFM of Dec. 9, 1901 •

270

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

Board of the Methodist Episcopal Church about the possibility of Spencer Lewis joining the committee. Lewis had been elected in 1898, but was not set free from his other duties by his mission society. He was viewed (from the American side) as an ideal addition to the committee to represent the Mandarin of West China which, after Clarke had left the committee, was no longer represented.193 The Methodist Episcopal Mission eventually agreed to Lewis's participation in the committee after Mateer’s interven­ tion.194 After Mateer’s and Goodrich's return to China, the committee met for the fifth time. The meeting was again held in Zhifu, which was to be the place for all NT translation meetings thereafter, and occupied the time from October 16 through December 1, 1903. The participants once again were Mateer, Goodrich, and Bailer. Lewis was in the process of moving from Chongqing to Nanjing to make the places of committee meeting more accessible to him, and was thus not able to join this meeting, and Woods could not leave his mission station. He was not to attend any further meet­ ing before ig in his resignation in 1904. At this ng, the books of Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews were translated.195 Colossians and the two Epistles to the Thessalonians were published tentatively in 1904, as well as (in a separate edition) Hebrews. For the next meeting from June 18 through September 2, 1904, the translators had planned to finish the NT in its tentative form. Lewis at­ tended this meeting for the first time, in addition to Mateer, Goodrich, and Bailer. The remaining Epistles were finished, but the last book of the NT, Revelation, could not go through the final revision because Goodrich had to leave the meeting early on account of his daughter's illness.196 He had been responsible for the preparation of the first draft of Revelation and thus had the majority vote in its revision and the chair in committee. Though Mateer was the official chairman, the meetings were led by the respective

193 See ABS Report 丨 903, 177f. 194 See ch. 10.5.3. 195 Goodrich wrote in a letter to ABCFM of Nov. 13, 1903: “I was plunged right into the work of Bible translation. ... We have been through Hebrews, the text of which happened to be ready for Committee work, and are now going together on the hard­ est passages in the New Testament, namely the first and second chapters of Colos­ sians.n 196 His daughter, Mary Dorothea, died on Oct. 19, 1904.

U n io n V e r s i o n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

271

translator o f the part being considered.197 It was not considered possible to finish the N T, even though G oodrich’s assistant Zhang Xixin attended the meeting to its close. The pressure from the previous delays o f the transla­ tion caused them to decide not to wait for the next meeting to finish Reve­ lation. Instead, G oodrich’s draft was sent to the other members; they for­ warded their criticisms back to G oodrich, who then had the responsibility for the final version. Through this effort, the tentative edition of the NT was finished and the remaining books (1 Timothy through Revelation, with the exception o f the already published Hebrews) were published in 1905.

I l l u s t r a t io n 9 :

Photograph o f G oodrich’s (F u 富 ） manuscript o f Revelation (11:8-12), corrected by M ateer (D i 狄 ) . In the columns for O wen (W en 文 ）and C larke (C hen 陳 ）no corrections are added, in W ood’s (Lin 林 ）colum n apparently either B ailer o r Lewis added his co r­ rections. In the far right colum n is the Peking Version translation and in the far left col­ um n the final changes. Note that G oodrich, like Sheffield and W herry, uses shangzhu for “G o d ,” w hich is corrected by M ateer to shen and in the final correction to shangdi. (C ourtesy o f DO H PC . USA.)

]9? C f. G am ier/Feng 1934, 217.

272

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

In his report to the 1907 conference, Mateer said: The version of the New Testament in its tentative form was now com­ plete. It contained many double readings—some representing different interpretations, some different idioms, and some different dialects. A considerable number of criticisms had been sent in from time to time, some careful and extended, others on special texts, or on special lines of interpretation.198 The need for a revision before the approaching general conference was evident. The double readings had to be decided upon, and over the years of translating ideas had changed about the language to employ，raising the necessity of making the whole text uniform. The NT was again divided into parts, one part assigned to each member, to be worked over before the next meeting on May 20, 1905. This meeting lasted until October 11 and was attended by Mateer, Goodrich, Bailer, and Lewis. Some of the committee members expected to review the whole of the NT, but before the meeting Mateer wrote: I am not nearly as sanguine as Mr. Bailer seems to be that we will get through with the New Testament at our forthcoming meeting. In fact I am quite sure we will not get through. I have gone carefully through Matthew, Mark and John and am now in Acts. I find a great many things that must be changed before the work can be made generally ac­ ceptable. I am going to the committee prepared to insist on better Man­ darin. We must not sacrifice the language on the altar of literality. We have done far too much of this. We had better take a little more time at the finish and make our work worthy of all the work we have put on it.'99 Mateer was right with his estimate: only the revision of the Gospels was finished at this meeting, and these were published in one volume in 1906. Mateer reported about the meeting: The committee met six days in the week for four and a half months, without a single interruption, part of the time one session a day and part of the time two sessions. ... Notwithstanding our utmost diligence 198 Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Version, in Rec­ ords 1907, 281. Cf. fn. 201. 199 Quoted in letter from Hykes to ABS of Apr. 28, 1905. The “better Mandarin" alluded to in this letter was apparently misunderstood by Hykes, who commented: “I am glad that Dr. Mateer is going to insist on a higher style and better Mandarin. Bishop Schereschewsky's criticism of this work is that the language is that of the streets and not of the gentleman and scholar." Mateer surely did not allude to a Mandarin of a higher style but rather a more colloquial Mandarin.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

273

throughout this time, we barely succeeded in completing the four Gos­ pels, and this despite the fact that most of us had made diligent prepara­ tion beforehand. From these facts can be formed an estimate of the dif­ ficulties of our task, which to be understood must be experienced.200 At the next meeting from May 4 through October 12, 1906, the remaining part of the NT was revised. This section, together with the Gospels, was published in one volume in 1907, just in time for the conference. In his report of this last meeting, Mateer remarked: We have now been over the entire New Testament twice in committee, each time going over and carefully considering every verse and sen­ tence, this besides all the work done with our Chinese teachers in the intervals. In this last revision we had in hand many criticisms from vari­ ous quarters, all of which were canvassed and their bearing consid­ ered.201 A few minor emendations may be made in the future, but in all essential matters our work on the New Testament is finished.202 (Italics by Mateer.) Nevertheless, Mateer was unhappy with the 1907 edition which—according to its preface—“must be regarded as distinctly literal and faithful to the original," for which “as a necessary consequence, smoothness of style has been more or less sacrificed."203 Mateer was not the only member in the translation committee who was frustrated about concessions made in the process of committee work. Especially the last phase of work on the revi­ sion had meant sacrifices on all sides. Bailer wrote about this process: ... each in turn had to submit to seeing many of his own preferences and pet ideas swept away—a truly humbling process. Surely no body of men have more cause to feel the force of the words, “If any man thinketh that he knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know" [1 Cor. 8:2] than a revision committee. So many men, so many

200 Quoted in ABS Report 1906, 157. 201 Information differs widely on the amount of suggestions received. Whereas Bailer (1907, 96) wrote “kind and well-meaning friends sent in many suggestions, indeed the number of revised curreals were enough to kill any half dozen committees," Sydenstricker (1912, 593) cited a (unnamed) member of the NT committee who com­ plained that only six suggestions had been sent in shortly before the NT’s con^)letion. 202 Quoted i

n

1907, 151f.

m “There are places not a few with which I myself am dissatisfied, many d f which I see can be improved. I refer especially to texts tbat are excessively literal, and where foreign idioms are used to the detriment of style" (letter from Mateer after the 1907 conference, quoted in Fisher 1911, 268).

274

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

minds, so many points of view from which the same thing may be re­ garded, and so many differing degrees of knowledge and experience. It was in committee as in daily life. After a residence of twenty or thirty years in the country some day one hears a new expression, enquires about it and finds it in common use. And the humiliating part is that from that day onward one hears it continually. The proud boast, T ve been so long in the country and have never heard such and such an ex­ pression,' turns into thin air as the continental area of the language im­ presses itself upon the mind. The rejoinder of a Chinese teacher to such an exhibition of ignorance was brief and to the point. It was but two words— 也 許 [yeett—“pertiaps”】!204 11.4.5. Comparison of 1907 Edition with EarUa* Editions Many of die actual changes in the revision, which amounted to more than 30 in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, displayed the demand for greater smoothness of style. The con^licated 這 —人就是我所指著說 一“this person was the one I spoke referring to" (“this was he of whom I s a id , verse 15)—was changed to the much easier 這 個 人 就 是 我 曾 說 過 一 “this person was the one I spoke (about),” or, similarly, 你論自己是怎麼說 一 “talk about how to say of yourself* (“what do you say about yourself," verse 22)—to 你自 己 說你是誰 一 “say yourself who you are." The alterations in verse 35 (“(John) was standing widi two of his disci­ ples") show the attempt to come away from a classical form of Mandarin. 並 有 兩 個 門 徒 同 在 一“and there were two disciples together with [him]"—was changed towards die more colloquial 還 有 他 的 兩 個 門 徒 在 那袠 一 “there also were two of his disciples there." The latter translation did not only avoid the rather literary bing 並 and tongzai 同 在 ，but was also more faitfiful to the Greek text in translating the possessive pronoun. Other classical particles such as nai 乃 or qi 豈 （verses 8 and 46) were sup­ planted with re coiloquia rparts naishi 乃是 or hai 還 . An increi ie of the gi cal devices of Mandarin made the meaning of the text clearer. In 從 上 帝 一 “from God" (verse 6)—the 1900 edition did not have the necessary addition of “here” (zher/zheli 這 兒 / 這 裏 ）or “there” (nar/nali 那 兒 / 那裏 ）after a person in a locative phrase, thus excluding the possibility of a personality of God. In the 1907 edition, this was changed to 從 上 帝 那 衷 . Or verse 4 (“in Him was life”）of the 1900 edition read 在他有生命 一**in (or: at, on, etc.) him was life ”一 204 Bailer 1907, 26f.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

275

which followed the Greek syntax radier than common Chinese usage and did not specify the locative phrase; in the 1907 edition’s 生 命 在 他 裏 頭 一 “the life was in(side) it"—this was avoided. The Mandarin translators had problems with the translation of fev in verses 26, 31, and 33.203 Not only the Baptist versions, Chalmers/Schaub, and the Easy Wenli translators had chosen the locative yu 於 ，but by the time the Mandarin translators started to work on their version, the Ameri­ can Standard Version of 1900 (OT 1901) had been released,206 which did not use the instrumental “with” of the English Revised Version but the locative “i n ' The Mandarin translators tried some kind of a compromise in the 1900 edition by choosing die instrumental yong 用 when applying to water (verses 26, 31, 33) and yi 以 when to the Holy Spirit (verses 33). Witfi the use of yi, also an instrumental but rather classical term, tfiey hoped for a less concrete meaning. The new edition changed this inconsis­ tency to a unified yong. One other unusual feature that was not taken over by the 1907 edition was the blank space in front of all words applying to “God”. As a result of the Term Question, most shen editions of the Bible had left a blank space before shen to imply reverence to “God” and to denote the difference to (false) “gods”.207 In the 1900 edition, all terms which applied to God, such as 办 父 （ “fa th e r, verse 14), zhu 主 （ “L o rd , verse 23), or shengling 聖靈 (“Holy Spirit," verse 32), had been preceded by a blank space. Though this solution seemed at the first glance consistent, in reality it raised more theological questions for the Bible translator: should the terms for “Jesus” and “Logos” also be preceded by a blank space?

205 Seech. 11.2.2and 11.3.2. 206 In the process of the translation of the English Revised Version (NT 1881, OT 1885), several American scholars took part in the committee work, but were not al­ lowed to vote on the final text. Their renderings were included for the time of 14 years in an appendix of the English Revised Version with the understanding that 14 years after its publication they could publish their own edition with their preferred renderings. When the time came, the newly published American Standard Version turned out to have gone much beyond the appendix readings of the English Revised Version because the emendations in the appendix had been reduced to "the lowest limit” (American Standard Version 1901, preface, IV). 207 Another consideration was of a more practical nature: the same plates for printing Bible editions with other terms like shangdi, tianzhu, or zhenshen could in that way also be used for editions using shen, or tbe other way around. All of diese terms needed space for two characters, which could be then exchanged on the plates.

276

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

In addition to these changes, the punctuation system was newly devel­ oped by Mateer.208 Up to tiiat time, die Bible translators had e 叫 >loyed large circles (〇 ）to denote new paragraphs and commas (» ) and fiillstops ( o ) as two punctuation marks.209 This system was seen as being too con­ fining for indicating the same variations within the Mandarin version that are possible in the English system with its comma, fullstop, semicolon, colon, etc. For this reason, Mateer introduced a new punctuation mark, a solid fullstop ( • )，to denote colons and semicolons as in die English punctuation. Verse 3 (“All things were made by him; and without him was not anything made that hath been made”一 English Revised Version) shows the different concepts. The early version read 萬 物 是 藉 著 他 造 的 ，凡被 造 的 ，没 有 一 樣 不 是 藉 著 他 造 的 一 “the myriad creatures were created through him, (of) all which were created, there was not one (kind) which was not created through him"—whereas the later edition followed in its first part the punctuation of the English Revised Version: 萬物是藉著他造 的 • 凡 被 造 * 没 有 一 樣 不 是 藉 著 他 造 的 一 “the myriad creatures were created through him; (of) all which were created, there was not one (kind) which was not created through him.” The second part is modeled accord, ing to Chinese speech pattern and syntax, separating the syntactical topic (“all of which were created") with a comma. According to Bailer (1907, 101), the Union Version’s system of punctuation followed the principle of the English Revised Version which was to maintain what is sometimes called the heavier system of stopping, or, in other words, that system which, especially for convenience in reading aloud, suggests such pauses as will best ensure a clear and intelligent setting forth of the true meaning of the words.210 11.4.6. Greek Basis Texts The preface of the 1907 NT addressed the issue of the text underlying the translation by pointing to the liberty of the decisions at the 1890 general conference in regard to the Greek text, and that we have for the most part taken the text of the Revised, and in the com­ paratively few cases in which we have, for what seemed to us good and 208 “The whole work of punctuation was put in my hands and I find it quite a task as we are introducing a new system—the old Chinese system being too vague and imperfect" (letter from Mateer to ABS of Nov. 28, 1906). 209 See principle 17 of the 1891 meeting in Shanghai (ch. 11.1). 2,0 English Revised Version New Testament 1881, 1885, Prefece, XXIV.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

277

sufficient reasons, elected to follow the old text, the translation of the Revised text has been put into the margin.211 Compared to the policy of the Easy Wenli translators, who accepted the revised text as their only basis,212 this must be seen as a more conservative translation principle.213 At the same time, however, it did contain an ele­ ment of boldness because the decision on what reading to accept rested with the missionaries instead of with the authorities in textual criticism in England and America.214 In John 1’ the revised text of the English Revised Version was followed in all its readings.215 In other passages of importance to tradition and the church, the text underlying the Authorized Version was followed. The doxology at the end of the Lord’s Prayer (“For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Am en”一Authorized Version, Matt. 6:13), which was only found in the margin in the English Revised Version, was taken up in the body text of the Mandarin Union Version.216 Matt. 17:21 (“Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fastingn—Authorized Version) was omitted in the English Revised Version but included in the Union Version;217 the same was done in Mark 11:26.218 In other cases, single clauses were kept in accordance with the Author­ ized Version’s text: In Matt. 15:6 the Authorized Version reads “father or mother," the English Revised Version only “fa th e r, and the Union Version 2,1 Quoted in Strandenaes 1987, 81. Kramers(1956,159), who argued that the Union Version was renctered as much aspossible according to theEnglishRevised Version “to avoid much misunderstanding in case diglots were published,” is thus strongly to be doubted. The translators' considerations for—in their understanding—a correct translation were certainly too manifold to also consider the possible problem of a diglot version. 212 Seech. 11.2.2. 2,3 Cf. Strandenaes 1987, 84. 214 See Moule’s criticism, ch. 10.5.2. 2,5 See w . 24 and 27 (cf. ch. 8.1.2). 2 ,6 因爲阈度，褙 枘 ，榮 耀 ，个足你的，直到永遠，阿 門 一 “Because the state (= kingdom), power, (and) glory is all yours, into eternity. Amen." 2 ,7 至於i i —類 的 鬼 ，若不褚告禁食，他就不出來一“with regard to this kind of demons, if one does not pray and fast, he will not go out.” 2,* Authorized Version: “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses"; Union Version:你們若不较怒人（ 的過犯，only in 1907, not in 1919 edition).你們在天上的父，也不躲怒你們的過犯一“If you do not forgive (the trespasses of) men, (then) your father in heaven will also not forgive your trespasses."

278

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

fum u 父母 一 “parents”；or in Eph. 1:15, the Authorized Version’s term “love” （ 親 愛 ）was kept in die Union Version even ttiough it does not appear in ii the English Revised Version. This second example, where the NT of the American Standard Version of 1900 reverted to the old text (“love”） as well, exenqjlifies Bailer's explanation (1907, 94) that in those cases the Union Version committee followed the American Standard Version reading as the latest result of scholarshq) and research. Other examples quoted by Bailer are found in Rom. 3:妒丨9 or Heb. 4:2.220 In the cases where the Union Version followed the conservative inter­ pretation of die American Standard Version (Eph. 1:15, Rom. 3:9, Heb. 4:2), these interpretations are generally recognized today. In tbe case of the above-quoted first three examples (Matt. 6:13, 17:21, Mark 11:26), mod­ ern Greek texts omit these passages,221 but most modern translations usu­ ally have them at least in the margin. In the case of Matt. 15:6, modem Greek texts also omit this passage, but many modem translations follow the contextually more logical option of -father or motbe mother" anyway, surely the reason why the Union Version translators chose! that, too. 11.4.7. Chinese Basis Texts The 1890 conference had required the equal use of all three Mandarin translations (Peking Version, G. John's, and Nanking Version) as basis ver­ sions.223 Bailer commented on these instructions: These instructions were not only laid to heart by the Mandarin New Testament revisers, but were carried out and exceeded. ... All versions of tbe Scriptures in Chinese extant in Mandarin were “diligently com­ pared," and in addition the various Wen-li versions were constantly con­ sulted. Bishop Schereschewsky's Wen-li version, the Delegates' version, 2,9 English Revised Version: "in worse case"; American Standard Version: “better”； Union Version:比 他 們 強 一“stronger (than they).” 220 English Revised Version: **bul the word of hearing did not profit them, because they were not united by faith with them that heard"; American Standard Version: “but the word of hearing did not profit them, because it was not united by faith with them that heard"; Union Version:只 足 所 聽 見 的 逍 們 無 益 ，因爲他們没有倌心與 所聽見的道調和 一“but the teaching {dao) that was heard did not profit them, be­ cause their faith was not in harmony with the teaching they heard"—underlines by author. 221 See Aland/Martini/Metzger/Wikgren 1975; et.al. 222 The preceding two verses (Matt. 15:4,5) explicitly speak of father and mother. 223 See ch. 10.2.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

279

the Union version in Easy W6n-li, and such parts as were available of the Union high W6n-li version were all requisitioned.224 (Italics by Bai­ ler.) Bailer wisely did not refer to how much the versions were actually used, only ttiat they were “compared.” The text of the Nanking Version was by no means used as a model for tiie Mandarin Union Version; neither the low style of language nor the translation principle widi its want of fidelity could have even been considered. Though the 1890 conference had required the Nanking Version as a model, a version which had not even been in print since 1884,223 nobody seriously considered the use of tfiis version in the process of the Union Version translation. The decision to officially name it as a source must be seen as an attempt to do justice to all the existing Man­ darin versions and to the missionaries and Chinese Christians who formerly had used the Nanking Version.226 G. John's version came in its translation principles and style much closer to the idea of the Union Version translators, and yet it was, as the comparison of John 1 shows, not employed to a great degree.227 The Pe­ king Version, on the other hand, was the primary source as far as Chinese versions are concerned. This is demonstrated by the fact that on the sheets prepared for the first draft translation, one column was already filled in with the text of the Peking Version.m Still, the differences between the Peking and the Union Version of 1907 are significant. One of the most striking differences between the Peking and the Union Version of 1907 is the use of pronouns. The translators of the Peking Ver­ sion tried to employ as few pronouns as possible, regardless of the Greek text. With this translation technique they followed the tradition of espe­ cially the classical versions, in particular the version by Medhurst/Gatzlaff/Bridgman and the Delegates’ Version, which tried to limit the use of pronouns according to Chinese stylistic requirements. The principles of Bailer 1907, 22f. See ch. 7.1. Cf. ch. 8.2.1. The Union Version translators seem to have followed G. John’s translation in some cases where they atten^ned to lower the style of the Peking Version in direct speech. Heren 何 人 一**what person (= who)"—of the Peking Version in verse 22 became the colloquial shui 誰 —**who," or the somewhat stilted 蹈 從 我 來 一“corae by fol­ lowing me"—became the more colloquial 來 ，跟從我 一“come, follow me”一in verse 43, both passages according to G. John’s translation. See ch. 11.4.1; Illustration 9.

280

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

translation adopted at the 1891 meeting in Shanghai show the importance which lich was given to the correct use of pronouns: four of eighteen principles were specifically about the use of pronouns.229 In eleven instances in John 1 (verses 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 28, 35, 36 (twice), 39, 41), the Union Version 1907 placed a pronoun where the Greek text has one, but the Peking Version did not. The most obvious example is to be found in verse 28, where Peking Version (and G. John) translated the Greek demonstrative pronoun xauxa with 約 翰 作 的 見 證 —44the witness which John gave"—instead of the Un­ ion Version’s 這 些事 一 “these tilings.” The Mandarin Union Version was accordingly sometimes referred to as the niwota de shu 你 我 他 的 害 — “You-I-He-Book”一a mocking reference to an obsessive use of pro­ nouns.230 There are several other cases where the more literary translation of the Peking Version was avoided. In verse 4, dao zhong 道中 一“in the Lo­ gos"—is rendered ta litou 他裏頭 一“in him"—not only employing the pronoun of the Greek, but also a modem posqx>sition instead of the Peking Version’s classical one. Bi wo hou 比 我 後 一“after me"—in verse 15 of the Peking Version is not as colloquial as the Union Version’s zfli wo yihou 在我以後 一 “after me,” neither is verse 35’s tong ta zai yi chu 同他在 — 處 一 “together with him at one place”一which in the Union Version of 1907 became zai nali 在 那 里 一“there [with John】.”231 Verse 39 (“He said to them, ‘Come, and you will see.* They came therefore and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, ...”）is a good example to point out the different translation techniques of the two groups of translators. It was rendered by the translators of the Peking Version w ith 耶 穌 說 ，你 們 來 看 。他 們 就 來 看 他 的 注 處 ，這一日 便和他同住。 “Jesus said: ‘Come see.’ And so they came to see his lodging, and this day they lived with him whereas the Union Version 1907 had it translated w i t h 耶 穌 對 他 們 說 ，你 們 來 看 。他們就去 看 他 在 那 里 注 ，這 一 天 便 和 他 同 住 • … 一“Jesus said to them: ‘Come see.’ And they went to see where he lived, and this day they lived with him; The Peking Version translators did not translate the object in the introduction into direct speech because it is implied in the context, some­ thing which the Union Version translators in their more literal understand­ ing of translation did (對他們 )• In the middle part, the Peking Version had …

一

229 Principles 4-8, see ch. 11.1. 230 See Kramers 1963, 170. 231 Seech. 11.4.5.

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

281

the basic meaning of the Greek text translated with zhuchu 住 處 ，not die actual text, which says 7iou “where he stays”一as translated by the Union Version. Besides being literally more accurate, the Union Version’s rendering here is of a much less literary nature. The verb lai 來 — “come”一of the Peking Version implies that the two apostles came over to the place where Jesus was standing which was identical with his place of residence, whereas the qu 去 一“go to”一of the Union Version implies the correct meaning: that they went with Jesus to see where he was living. Here the Union Version translators' broader experience with the correct use of Mandarin becomes evident. The Peking Version translators were trans­ lating literally in this case, but not according to Chinese usage. In the last part of verse 39 the versions differ with the term for “day ”：the Union Ver­ sion 's (tian 天）is more colloquial, while the Peking Version’s term (n 日） is more literary. In many instances the 1907 Union Version’s greater fidelity to the Greek text in comparison to the Peking Version can be shown. Among these are shijie 世 界 一“world”一for shijiede ren 世 界 的 人 一“people of the world” 一in verse 10 (“world”)；roushen 肉 身 一“body of flesh”一for renshen 人身 一 “human body”一in verse 14 (aotp^—Mflesh"); fengman 豐滿 一 “fiillness”一for chongman de endian 充 滿 的 恩 典 一“fiill grace ”一 in verse 16 (rcXi|pncx—“ftillness”） ；or shenshang 身上 一“on his body (= on him)”一for toushang 頭 上 一on his head"—in verse 32 (“on him”). In these and a number of other examples the Mandarin Union Version transla­ tion's terminology is comparable to the Easy Wenli and High Wenli Union Version translations.232 Nevertheless，these could very well be due to the identical translation principles rather than proofs for the use of the other Union Versions as a textual basis. There are instances, though, where the Mandarin Union Version trans­ lators chose the liberal translation technique of the Peking Version, as in verse 11 (“he came to his own”）where it reads 他 到 自 己 的 地 方 來 一“He came to his own place"—instead of the more abstract translations of the classical Union Versions which followed the Greek example.233

232 With the one exception of the High Wenli’s renshen 人身 in verse 14 (see ch. 11.3.5). 235 The Easy Wenli version read 彼至福己者一“he came to what belonged to him (= his own)"—and the High Wenli 其至己所觸— “he came to his belongings.”

282

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

11.5. Summary After the mostly fnistrating process of electing the committee members the actual translation work had a promising start with the 1891 meeting in Shanghai. Even those who had been skeptical were impressed with the positive atmosphere, and the rules decided and committees elected seemed to fulfill the requirements of what was aimed at: a translation of the Bible into Chinese in three versions which were only to differ in style. In reality, however, the committees established to ensure the harmony of the versions never gained any significance, and no serious harmonizing attempt was ever made. The principles adopted at the meeting reflect the experience that the missionaries had gained from almost a century of Protestant Bible transla­ tion in China. They continued the tradition with a new emphasis on fidelity and the effort to ensure harmony within the committees. The Easy Wenli translation committee seemed to have some advantages over the other committees. After Blodget left the committee, all of its members were living in the south of China, making it significantly easier to come together for meetings. In addition, most of tfie Easy Wenli transit lators were experienced Bible translators, and they also had much greater freedom by not having to follow any Chinese basis text. They formed the only of the three committees with apparently no disagreements, which is re­ flected in the speed of their translation—by the time they had finished the complete NT, the High Wenli committee had not even met a single time, and the Mandarin committee had only translated three NT books. Never­ theless, they produced the most harshly criticized of all versions. Encouraged by the English Revised Version, whose Greek text they had taken as their sole basis, they translated a version of utmost fidelity. Even they themselves did not see its place among common readers, but instead among students of theology. This was considered to be a clear breech with the Union Version concept of one Bible in three versions, and it was heart­ ily condemned. Only one group of missionaries paid considerable interest to the Easy Wenli translation—the Baptists—who were represented in the committee by Graves. In the discussion about a Baptist publication of the Easy Wenli, as well as other Union Version editions, it turned out that the liberal agree­ ment of the general conference on the employment of either term for **bap­ tism" was not meant as such but merely done for the sake of harmony. Several years of discussion had to elapse before the Baptist societies were

U n io n V e r s io n ：N e w T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

283

allowed to print their own editions of the Bible with their specific term for “baptism.” In its constitution, the High Wenli committee was the very opposite of the Easy Wenli committee. Even before the individual work began, diere was suspicion among the members which eventually turned into an inability to cooperate. This was partly due to the strong personalities of the missionaries and the great confidence of each in his own abilities in classical Chi­ nese, but also to the difference in understanding of what the High Wenli version was supposed to be. Whereas for the European committee mem­ bers it was mostly to be a revision of the Delegates’ Version, for the Americans it was to be a new translation with very different translation principles. The way the committee “solved” its problem was remarkable: they waited until the greatest potential conflicts widiin the committee had disappeared by the death of some members, in this case the Europeans. Though two of the three were replaced with other European missionaries, the Americans had advanced so much in their work diat they were able to produce a translation according to their principles. This is especially re­ markable because the High Wenli version only came about as a concession of the American missionaries to their British colleagues. The translation eventually showed not only a stronger emphasis on fi­ delity than the Delegates’ Version，but also a higher employment of new and indigenous terminology. Chalmers/Schaub’s NT translation, the intermediate product of two of the European High Wenli translators, was not meant to be a competitor to the High Wenli version, but rather a translation aid for it. It was ultimately never used as such, but instead most highly criticized for its very uncom­ mon terminology and extreme fidelity. The Easy Wenli translators, who were closely connected with Chalmers, were somewhat influenced by his translation principles, possibly even to a greater degree than Chalmers and Schaub would have wished for. The committee of the Mandarin translation started off with immense dif­ ficulties, not only in the election phase but also during the actual translation work. No set norm existed for Mandarin, making it a style of language subject to individual evaluation. This led to dilfering concepts of translation in regard to what was acceptable for the language of Bible translation. Even Mateer, the most dominant and uncompromising member of the committee, learned to make compromises, a development which led to a great improvement in the work of the committee. On the other hand, this improvement must also be attributed to the absence of Owen, Mateer's greatest opponent.

284

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 11

Though Owen’s work was officially always quoted as being considered in the translation process, the NT translation must in fact be considered mainly the work of three missionaries: Mateer, Goodrich, and Bailer. As in all of the Union Version translations, Chinese assistants were also involved in the translation process, but to a greater degree than in the classical ver­ sions. The reason for the greater Chinese involvement was the lack of a standard form of Mandarin, and the therefore necessarily greater reliance on native speakers. That Mateer’s Chinese assistant, Wang, later became a Bible translator himself also demonstrates the more active part the Chinese took in the translation work. The Greek basis version for the Mandarin translation was generally the Greek text of the English Revised Version, but in many cases a conserva­ tive attitude became apparent which made the translators revert back to the old Textus Receptus. The American Standard Version，which had been published in the meantime, also became a relevant source in its interpreta­ tion of the Greek text. Even though all three earlier Mandarin NT transla­ tions had been prescribed for the Union Version translators as basis versions，only one of them, the Peking Version, was seriously considered. In comparison to that version, the translation principles of the Union Version become apparent: the employment of what was considered a colloquial style of Mandarin, which included the abolition of set literary phrases, and greater fidelity to the Greek text.

12. THE 1907 GENERAL CONFERENCE

When the missionaries met in Shanghai for the third general missionary conference in China from April 25 through May 8 ，1907, the focus of the conference was not the Union Version Bible translation as during the 1890 general conference, but rather a general union of the Protestant church.1 Nevertheless, the American and the British and Foreign Bible Societies were represented by John Fox (1853-1924), the correspondend secretary of the ABS, and J.H. Ritson (1868-1953), the secretary of the BFBS, a sign of the importance placed by the Bible societies on the outcome of the conference in regard to Bible translation.2 The two main topics related to Bible translation were the combination of the Easy and High Wenli Union Version NT and the translation of the Mandarin and one classical (Wenli) OT.

12.1. Combination of the Classical Union Versions The decision to translate two Union Versions in different forms of classical Chinese had been made in 1890 in a diplomatic attempt to avoid conflict in 1 See Latourette 1929, 665fT. 2 The NBSS was represented by Archibald, who is quoted in the Records 1907 (667) wilh the following: “Mr. J. Archibald thought they ought to congratulate the execu­ tive committees and the translators on the output of seventeen years. He did not say this sarcastically, but with simplicity and in truth. The output had been very small, but the blame was not theirs—it lay on the head of the previous Conference who evolved the scheme. Some of them would remember that he exposed the scheme at the Conference. He saw clearly at that time that the plan was unworkable firom the beginning, and he had reasons for his belief because he had correspondence with si­ nologues, and he thought the result had justified that view. Griffith John’s work had come to a standstill, and he placed his whole work with the two committees. He was persuaded to begin again, and he had been going on since, and he hoped he would be spared to return and complete the work. If not it would be a serious loss to the Chi­ nese Christian Church." The very skeptical position of the NBSS regarding the Un­ ion Version had not changed, nor had its support for G. John’s version. Nevertheless it continued to financially support the Union Version project with one fifth of the cost (see ch. 11, fh. 1).

286

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 12

the realization of the long-awaited Union Version. The varying loyalties of missionaries of different nationalities and denominations to existing ver­ sions had made such a decision necessary. Yet there had been criticism about this decision from the beginning. As early as 1893—long before the first editions of the Easy Wenli Un­ ion Version were published—Sheffield suggested to the ABS that the two classical versions should be combined. His reasons were as follows: First, because in the attempt to produce two versions, both will suffer, the lower by being pushed into the edge of Mandarin, (as be [Sheffield] says, Dr. Blodget is doing) and the other by being condensed and filled with ambiguities. He thinks that if the Committees were merged, the majority would demand fidelity of rendering, uliile be fears that in his Committee, he and Dr. Wherry will be outvoted on that issue, and he intimates that if his committee as constituted fails to accomplish that fi­ delity and a clear unambiguous style, he will not feel justified to work with it.3 For Sheffield, the call for the merging of the two versions at that early stage was clearly a tactical one. He estimated that the members of the Easy Wenli committee would tend to translate more faithfully to the Greek than the European members of his committee who siq>posedly si^ported the Delegates’ Version. Only through a new formation of one classical com­ mittee instead of two could a translation according to Sheffield’s principles possibly be accomplished. To emphasize this position, Sheffield translated his first drafts in a very low form of classical Chinese which would not have justified the existence of two classical versions.4 Hykes, who had just become the ABS agent, seemed to have understood Sheffield's true motives because he was rather skeptical: I think it is one of those questions [the merging of the two classical versions】that will take care of itself, and Dr. Sheffield is premature in raising it now. At present the only thing is to faithfully carry out the in­ structions of the Conference; and if, when the different Companies of Revisers come together to compare their work it should be found that the High and Low Wen-li Versions approach sufficiently near to be merged, it will then be time to seriously consider the question. One thing, however, is certain, there must be practical unanimity of opinion on any departure from the instruction of the [1890] Conference.3 3 Letter from Gilman (ABS) to Hykes of Sept. 25. 1893, quoted in Hills 1965, 55f. 4 See letter from Hykes to ABS of Nov. 25, 1893. 5

Ibid.

T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

287

A few years later, in 1900, Hykes stated more confidently: . . . I believe that there are a number of persons on each of the revision committees who see no good reason for continuing the two Wen-li Committees for the revision of the Old Testament. I expect the matter will be thoroughly discussed at the approaching General Missionary Conference [of 1901, which was rescheduled to 1907] and I have little doubt that it will decide that two Classical versions are not necessary. This is a consummation devoutly to be wished.6 At the 1907 conference, the missionaries did in fact unanimously decide to combine the Easy Wenli and High Wenli New Testaments and translate only one classical (Wenli) OT, instead of two as the previous conference had decided. The NT editions were not to be combined immediately, but circulated for a period of three years before any change was made to them. Sheffield, in an explanation of the resolution, based the necessity of one version instead of two on the lack of communication between the two clas­ sical committees. Thus “they were unconsciously moving towards common ground, and ... fully one half of the contents of the two versions were pre­ cisely alike."7 He even continued by acknowledging “a great debt of obli­ gation to the Easy Wenli company" in the name of his, the High Wenli committee.8 This acknowledgment, considering the low opinion that Shef­ field had expressed on other occasions about the Easy Wenli translation,9 can only be understood as a mere attempt to convince his Easy Wenli col­ leagues to agree to the unification of the two versions. Sheffield had good reasons to persuade his Easy Wenli colleagues, for there was resistance among them to an amalgamation of the classical ver­ sions. Gibson, the chairman of the Easy Wenli committee, pointed to “some personal sacrifice on the part of some members of the committee" to support this suggestion, and therefore suggested a combination of the two NT versions, with the aim of taking the advantages of both and com­ bining it into a version that “would hit the golden mean."10 Nevertheless, he pleaded that a resolution for a unification of the two versions should be Letter from Hykes to ABS of March 29, 1900. Gibson later commented on that by saying that be Hthought it was more than half, but they might take it that the prqxmion was something between one-half and seventenths of the two versions that were identical" (Records 1907, 676). Quoted in Records 1907, 665. See ch. 11.2.2. Quoted in Report o f Committee o f Translators o f the Easy Wenli Version, in Records 1907, 272.

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 12

288

accepted only under the limited preamble that it was "desirable,wU imply­ ing his hope that after the diree years of circulation the true merits of the Easy Wenli version would be recognized.

12.2. Resolutions for the Further Course of Trandation It was understood that the translation principles would be identical to those of the 1891 meeting in Shanghai, which had already covered questions of OT translation. The organizational principles, though, were different from those of the 1890 conference. These revised principles were, after some changes, adopted by the 1907 conference as follows: I.—That two Executive Committees of seven men each, one for Wenli and one for Mandarin, be elected by this Conference to whom shall be assigned the entire supervision of the work of producing one Union Bi­ ble in Chinese in two versions—Wenli and Mandarin. II.—That each Executive Committee shall select a company of transla­ tors consisting of five qualified missionaries, one of which shall translate the Old Testament into Wenli, and the other the Old Testament into Mandarin.12 III.—That the Executive Committee shall have power to fill all vacancies that may occur in either of the companies of translators or in their own committees. IV.—That we hereby aj^eal to the Boards of Missions and the Societies to which the selected translators may belong, to relieve them from other duties, so that they may give themselves as far as possible to this work, with a view to its early completion. V.—That we hereby request the three Bible Societies working in China to provide all the funds needed to meet the expenses of this work.13 "

See Records 1907, 676f.

12 Sheffield explained this resolution by saying that it would be up to the decision of the executive committee whether the old NT translators would be re-elected or new translators elected. He also pointed out that missionaries who acted on the executive committee and became members of the translation committee were to resign from the former (see Records 1907, 665f.). During the NT translation, too many mission­ aries had been part of both translation and executive committees. 11 Gibson explained resolutions IV and V by saying that a proposal had been consid­ ered that translators should be exclusively set apart for translation work. This was rejected on the grounds of the prohibitive costs and the impracticability of taking away a number of leading missionaries from their respective mission stations for several years. Besides that, isolation from spoken Chinese during the time of trans­ lation was considered detrimental to the accomplishment of the work (see Records 1907, 669f.). Fox, the secretary of the ABS, "wished that the Bible Societies were able to pay translators' salaries so that their whole time might be given" (ibid., 672).

T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

289

VI.—That the Bible Societies be requested to print the three versions of the New Testament now issued, and offer them for sale for the space of three years, before any further action is taken on them by the Confer­ ence, the translators having, in the meantime, the opportunity to harmo­ nize, revise or modify their work. And that during this period the mis­ sionaries be asked to give them a fair trial.14 VII.—That we regard it as highly desirable15 that there should be but one Union Version of the New Testament in Current Wenli, and we there­ fore instruct the Wenli Executive Committee to confer with the two companies of Wenli translators with a view to the production, if possi­ ble, of one such version from the versions now issued. VIII.—That the Committees of the British, American, and Scotch Bible Societies shall be asked each to appoint an agent in the field as an erofficio member of both Executive Committees. IX.—That we recommend that local Committees be formed in regions where versions in local dialects are needed to make these versions uni­ form in interpretation with the Standard Wenli and Mandarin Versions. X.—That the Conference desires to express the gratitude of the missions and churches in China to the American Bible Society, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and the National Bible Society of Scotland, for the generous help they have given in carrying out the program of trans­ lation undertaken by the General Conference of 1890; and earnestly commends to their continued support the work now undertaken. Further that the thanks of the missionary body are due to the Executive Com­ mittees and to all those who have given so much time and strength to the translation of the Bible. And finally, the Conference desires the earnest prayers of all who love the Word of God, for the success of the efforts that are being made to set it forth in fitting forms for the Chinese Church and people.16 The changes to the resolutions adopted at the 1890 conference are for a great part based on the experiences in the NT translation. Resolutions I and II, attempts to reduce the size of the executive committees (formerly con­ sisting of 12 members) and the Mandarin translation committee (formerly consisting of seven members), can be seen as a direct outgrowth of the

14 See ch. 12.1. Mateer of the Mandarin committee explained this resolution by saying that the revisers of the New Testaments were to be identical with the original trans­ lators, who explicitly did not necessarily have to be on the Old Testament translation committees (see Records 1907, 673). The call for “fair trial" was surprisingly added at the request of one of the High Wenli translators, Pearce (see ibid., 675). 15 See above. 16 Records 1907, 684fT.

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 12

290

immense difficulties, especially of the Mandarin translation committee, in continually needing to fill up the number of required members.17 Resolu­ tion IV, which asked the mission societies for more support, was also based on the frustrating experience that particularly the Mandarin commit­ tee had made of mission societies being unwilling to release their mission­ aries from other work. The addition of Bible society agents to the executive committees as required in resolution VIII was a move by the Bible societies for greater control over the proceedings. The idea that dialectal versions should be based on one standard version in classical (or Mandarin) Chinese (resolution IX) had been discussed for a long time; now that standard New Testaments had been completed, this resolution was officially recom­ mended. Reasons why this recommendation failed to come to any practical result were twofold: first, dialectal versions became increasingly unimpor­ tant and were eventually totally supplanted by the Mandarin Union Ver­ sion', second, such an undertaking was inherently impossible, if even the Union Version translators could not unify their versions. This unwillingness was paid tribute to with the vague recommendation to “harmonize, revise or modify their work” in resolution VI.

12.3. Question of Harmonizing the Mandarin and Classical New Testaments At the 1891 meeting in Shanghai, a committee consisting of Sheffield, Goodrich, and Burdon18 had been formed to harmonize the three versions. Their duty was, to take note of divergent renderings in these versions suggest such changes as to lead to harmony and submit them to the revisers to be set­ tled by a majority vote, subject to the final decision of the Board of Re­ visers in their united meeting, if desired.19 It was soon understood that the committee would only meet after the com­ pletion of the NT.20 Especially the two classical translation committees 17 Cf. Sheffield quoted in Records 1907, 11 After Burdon’s withdrawal firom the committee was filled by Graves.

lation work, his vacant position in this

19 Chinese Recorder 1892, 26. 20 In 1898, Goodrich (p. 487) wrote that the harmonizing committee “will commence its work as soon as any portion of the New Testament is printed in all of the three versions." but in 1901 (in a letter to ABCFM of March 2): “In this connection I may mention that I am one of three persons to unify the three versions when completed" (underline by author).

T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

291

were neither willing nor able to come together because of their different views on translation. However, the members of the Mandarin committee had also come to the conclusion during the last phase of their work on the NT translation that they would not agree to a future unification with the classical version.21 They expressly stated at the 1907 general conference: Our committee has had the Easy Wenli before them throughout most of the work, as also the High Wenli for part of the time. We have followed their interpretations whenever they commended themselves to our judg­ ment. After some discussion of the matter, it is the clear opinion of our committee that for the present, at least, it is best not to make any at­ tempt at harmonizing. TTie differences are not great, and where they ex­ ist, the different versions will serve Chinese students as a kind of com­ mentary. There are a multitude of questions in Biblical interpretation which no translation can settle once for all. Two versions in complete accord seems like a fine ideal, but it is one that will be very difficult of realization. An attempt at reconciling the present versions, if carried into detail, would develop many unexpected difficulties.22 The Mandarin translators had come to a point where they realistically saw that the difficulties of their own translation, which had only been solved after considerable conflict in their committee, surely would not be settled upon by a significantly enlarged company of two or three committees. This was especially the case after the differences of opinion between the two classical translation committees had become obvious.

12.4. Executive and Translation Committees An attempt was made to have a fairly equal number of American (including Canadian) and British missionaries in the executive committees, but no German missionaries were considered as for the executive committees of 1890.

Goodrich had still written in 1905 (in a letter to ABCFM of March 1): “All three versions may almost be regarded as one version as they are so close together in eve­ rything except in form. Dr. Sheffield of the High Wenli, Dr. Graves of the Easy Wenli, and myself of the Mandarin, have been appointed to unify the versions ... We want one Bible，not three bibles [sic】. 22

Quoted in Reports o f Executive and Translation Committees o f the Mandarin Ver­ sion, in Records 1907, 282.

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 12

292

The executive committee for the Wenli translation consisted of: American:

A.P. Parker (1850-1924) J. Jackson (d.1918) W. Ashmore, Jr. (1851-1937) P.D. Bergen (1860-1915)

American Southern Methodist 印 iscopal Missira (chairman) American Protestant Episcq>al Mission ABMU APM

British:

G.T. Candlin (1853-1924) P.J. Maclagan (1865-1958) A.E. Moule (1836-1918)

Methodist New Connexion Mission English Presbyterian Mission CMS23

The executive committee for the Mandarin translation was composed of: American:

D. MacGillivray (1862-1931) D.T. Huntington (1868-1950) G.A. Stuart (1859-1911) J.W. Lowrie (1856-1930)

Christian Literature Society, formerly Canadian Presbyterian Mission American Protestant Episcopal Mission American Methodist Episcopal Mission APM24

British:

T. Bryson (d. 1936) A. Grainger (1865-1933) J.P. Bruce (1861-1934)

LMS (chairman) CIM BMS

In both committees, the agents of die three Bible Societies acted ex officio: Archibald (NBSS), Hykes (ABS), and Bondfield (BFBS).25 The election of the translation committees was in no way con^arable to the difficult process of the NT committee election. It was left open to the executive committees whether they wanted to re-elect die former members or elect new ones.26 The members of the Mandarin translation committee had to be made up of British and American missionaries, whereas the Wenli translation committee had to have one German member.27 As it turned out, most of die elected translators were from the old committees. 23 Moule was replaced by John Martin (1856-1926), also of the CMS, when he left China in 1911. 24 Lowrie resigned in 1911 from both the translation and executive committee (cf. ch. 13.2.1), the same year Stuart died. They were succeeded by S.I. Woodbridge (1856-1926) (Southern Presbyterian Mission) and G.D. Wilder (1869-1946) FM). 25

!ield was elected general secretary for the Mandarin executive committee.

26 See fh. 14. 27 Cf. ch. 10. fh. 25.

T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

293

The Wenli OT committee consisted of: D.Z. Sheffield (chairman) J. Wherry L. Lloyd G.I. GenShr Patrick Johnston Maclagan (1865-1958) Sheffield, Wherry, and Lloyd had already been on the High Wenli com­ mittee, Genahr, the German member, had served on the Easy Wenli com­ mittee, and only Maclagan was not a member of a former Union Version committee. He was not only of the same mission station (Shantou) and so­ ciety (English Presbyterian Mission) as the Easy Wenli translation chair­ man Gibson, but was also his associate in Bible translation in the Chaozhou dialect.28 Gibson had originally been elected to the translation committee, but had resigned,29 and eventually replaced Maclagan on the executive committee instead. The members of the Mandarin translation committee were: C.W. Mateer (chairman) C. Goodrich F.W. Bailer S. Lewis C. Wilfred Allan (1870-1958) The Mandarin NT translation committee was thus almost completely taken over as such, only that a fifth member had to be elected for Owen who had retired in 1906. His successor was eventually found at the end of 1907 with the Briton Allan of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society from Han­ yang (today part of Wuhan).30 Several of the elected former translators had earlier announced that they would not continue the work on an OT committee. Sheffield had publicly stated in 1906: I shall decline to be a member of the committee in taking up the work in the Old Testament, but should be glad to remain until work on the New

28 Seech. 10.5.1.1. 29 See letter from Sheffield to ABS of Nov. 18, 1907. 30 In the History o f the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society (Findlay/Holdsworth 1924, vol. V, 492) it says: **During this decade the district [of Suizhou (Hunan) which in that mission societies' work included Hanyang】was sufficiently strong to make further contributions to the general cause of Missions in China by setting free from Circuit work the Rev. C.W. Allan that he might co-operate in the work of pre­ paring a Mandarin version of the Scriptures."

294

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 12

Testament is completed. My personal reasons for not continuing longer on the committee are that I have definite literary work in sight to occupy my time and strength for an indefinite period;31 and, again, I have al­ lowed my Hebrew to grow so rusty that it would be a serious effort to get sufficient hold of it to do satisfactory work.32 Nevertheless, Sheffield not only became a member of the OT committee, but was again elected its chairman. His reasons for accepting the position can be easily traced. In 1901 he had written to the ABCFM that he was not willing to work on the OT committee, but described how he imagined a committee to be formed: I ... shall urge that the two committees—easy and high styles—be united in that work, drq>ping out certain men either by resignation or selection.35 When the election for the committee finally took place, his position (to­ gether with Wherry and Lloyd) secured that the line of the High Wenli tr ion could be followed,34 thus necessitating his commitment. former and newly elected chairman of the Mandarin committee, Mateer, had similar motives in his acceptance of the position on the Man­ darin OT committee. He was only willing to accept his election on the con­ dition that as few new members as possible be on the committee—which helps to explain why practically the complete NT committee was re­ elected. Mateer was neither willing to go through the struggles of the first years of the NT translation nor to change the translation principles. Goodrich also hesitated to accept the position, and only accepted after Mateer and others pressed him:35

31 Sheffield was working on a Chinese history of the church (Jiaofiui shiji 教會史記， 13 vols., Shanghai: 1903-1915) and several other works (see Missionary Herald 1913, 351). 32 Quoted in ABS Report 1907, 150f. ,J Letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of April 7, 1901. M In a letter to ABS of Nov. 18, 1907, Sheffield wrote: “The placing of three members of the High Wenli Committee in the O.T. Committee means that its general type of translation in the N.T. will be continued in the Old." 35 Fisher (1911, 273) quotes a letter from Mateer to Goodrich: “There is a variety of reasons why I am perhaps as loath as you are to do this work. So far as money, or personal taste goes, I should rather do other work. But then it seems as if duty calls to this. Neither you nor I can ignore the fact that the experience and training of all these years have fitted us in a special manner for this work."

T h e 1907 G e n e r a l C o n f e r e n c e

295

As for myself, I tried hard not to accept it. But I have been pressed much by the members of my old Committee, and by the Executive Committee, and after 4 months and more of holding off, I have written that, with the permission of my Mission and the Prudential Committee, I will undertake the work.36 (Underline by Goodrich.) 12.5. Summary The decision for two instead of one classical Union Versions at the 1890 general conference had turned out to be a failure. Though conflict on this topic had been avoided at the conference itself, which made it possible to launch the Union Version project in the first place, shortly after the com­ mencement of the work the conflict arose. The call for only one classical translation gained increasing support, and by 1907, the time of the next general conference, only the Easy Wenli committee expressed some appre­ hension about an amalgamation of the two versions; otherwise it was widely supported. The hesitant attitude of the Easy Wenli committee mem­ bers merely emphasized a development which was expected by most mis­ sionaries: that the “amalgamation” was only a euphemism to assuage Easy Wenli fears while effectively pursuing only the High Wenli version as the one classical (Wenli) Union Version. This was reflected in the election of the translation committee of the Wenli OT, which was for the majority made up of High Wenli translators. The Mandarin OT translation was taken over by the NT translation committee. This was partly due to the pressure of its chairman, Mateer, who was only willing to participate in the translation work under the premise that there would not be many changes in the commi The harmonization of the Mandarin and the classical ation was openly rejected by the Mandarin committee. The problems of finding one line of translation in one committee were already considered too difficult to possibly succeed at the same task in two committees. The changes in the constitution for the translation showed an awareness of past mistakes, especially regarding the size of executive and translation committees, and the call for greater support by the mission societies. The Bible societies, which still paid great importance to the further development of the Union Version translation, gained a stronger position in the scheme by placing their agents 沾 members of the executive committees.

36 Letter from Goodrich to ABCFM of Nov. 6, 1907.

13. UNION VERSION: OLD TESTAMENT TRANSLATION

13.1. Wenli Translation Before the OT translation committee could meet or commence any mentionable work, its German member, Gendhr, resigned at the end of 1907. He felt that his Hebrew was not strong enough and that his other duties were too manifold to justify his work as a Bible translator.1 In 1904 he had accepted a position as reviser of the Cantonese Bible with die BFBS, a task which occupied him for three years; in 1905 he had become the head of synod for the Rhenish Missionary Society in China; and in the beginning of 1908 he accepted a position to revise Eitel’s Chinese Dictionary in the Cantonese Dialect (published 1877).2 Besides that, Genahr was apparently tired of committee work.3

1

**Es traf sich gOnstig, dafi ich schon Ende vorigen Jahres ... mein Mandat als BibelQbersetzer lur das Alte Testament (High WSnli) niedergelegt hatte. ... Meine Kenntnis des Urtextes des A.T. hat mit den Jahren so abgenommen, daft ich wirklich scbon deswegen Bedenken tragen muBte, mein Mandat beizubehalten. Die BibelQbersetzung wtirde mich ferner mindestens ftinf Jahre in Anspruch genonunen haben. ... Dem suchte ich durch die Niederlegung meines Mandates gleich entgegen. Und die Bibelgesellschaft hat das sehr fireundlich aufgenommen und mich nicbtsdestoweniger zu einem Honorary Member of the Society gemacht, einer Ehre, deren ich mich sehr unwert filhle" (letter from Genihr to Rhenish Missionary Society of June 12, 1908).

2

He strongly rejected any correlation between his resignation from the Union Version committee and his acceptance of the dictionary revision (see letter from Genahr to Rhenish Missionary Society of June 12, 1908).

3

In a letter to Rbenish Missionary Society of Sept. 9, 1904, Genahr explained his acceptance of the post of the reviser of the Cantonese Bible translation: man mir die Bedingung gemacht, die Arbeit in den Grenzen einer Komission zu tun, wQrde ich wohl abgelehnt baben. Ich habe nach der Seite hin keioe gerade ermutigenden Erfahrungen gemacht."

298

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

His place was not filled by a German; instead, the Briton Pearce, one of the High Wenli NT translators, was elected.4 Thus, with the exception of Maclagan, the committee now only consisted of members of die High Wenli translation committee. The plan for the High Wenli Union Version of 1890 had encompassed an OT translation as well as the NT translation. Under the chairmanship of Chalmers this was pursued to a higher degree than in the other Union Ver­ sion committees: All of the OT books had already been assigned to mem­ bers of the High Wenli committee, though only Schaub and Edkins had actually worked on translations of OT books. Schaub had translated Isaiah and several books of the Minor Prophets: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonas, and Micah;5 Edkins had translated the assigned books of Joshua, Psalms, and Proverbs,6 and then continued with Genesis, Exodus (ch. 120), Deuteronomy, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, and Isaiah (ch. 1-44).7 Sheffield commented on Edkins’s OT translation activities by saying: Dr. Edkins has been given considerable time to work on the Old Testament, but if of the type of work on the New it will not contribute much to final results.1 Sheffield’s estimate proved to be correct: Edkins’s efforts were not men­ tioned anymore in the OT translation process, whereas Schaub’s are quoted as a basis to Sheffield’s translations of the Minor Prophets.9 13.1.1. Proceedings and Meetings of Committee The work on the OT was carried out in a manner similar to that of the NT translation: the OT was divided into several parts, and sections were as­ signed to each member.10 These translations were circulated on sheets with

4 Pearce announced his election to the LMS on April 28, 1908: “ ... it is not for me to refuse the honour or to decline the labour." 5 See letter from Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 27, 1899. Schaub had planned to translate the OT together with Chalmers as they had done with their NT translation (see letter from Schaub to Basel Mission of Dec. 27, 1899). This was prevented by the death of Chalmers in 1899 and Schaub in 1900. 6 See letter from Edkins to Bondfield of March 16, 1898. 7 See ABS Report 1899, 105; 1905, 152; BFBS Report 1905. 372. * Letter from Sheffield to ABCFM of April 7, 1901. 9 See China Mission Year

1912, 296.

10 According to Sheffield. OT was divided into historical, poetic, and prophetic portions, with each member being assigned a section in each portion (see letter from

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

299

empty columns for the suggestions of the other committee members, and the final text was decided upon in committee work. For the greater part of the OT books it can be ascertained who translated which in its first draft: Sheffield translated Proverbs and the Minor Prophets; Wherry translated Genesis, Exodus, Job, Song of Songs and Isaiah 1-39; Lloyd translated Leviticus, Numbers, Ezra, Nehemia, Esther, Psalms, and Daniel; Macla­ gan translated 1 and 2 Samuel and Ezekiel; and Pearce Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.11 Unlike the NT translation, the OT’s preliminary phase before the first meeting did not occupy much time. The first meeting took place in Tongzhou, Sheffield’s residence, and occupied the time from April 1 through April 30, 1909. Only Maclagan could not attend. The translations of Job and 1 Samuel 1-14 were consid­ ered and passed. Unlike the NT translations, neither these nor any other of the OT books were published before the completion of the whole OT. Sheffield left after the meeting for a furlough to the United States (re­ turned to China in 1910), Pearce left for a furlough to England from 1910 through early 1912, Lloyd from 1910-1911, and Wherry spent 1911 on furlough in the United States. Thus the problem of furloughs, which had posed a great hindrance to the process of the translation of the High Wenli NT, was minimized by coordinating the times of absence of most of the committee members. Because of the furloughs, the second meeting did not take place until 1912, again in Tongzhou. Sheffield's hopes for a three-month meeting12 were frustrated by his own illness and the departure of Maclagan in May. Still, the book of Proverbs was reviewed and passed during the months of April and May. Pearce wrote to the LMS on June 19, 1912: During the weeks of meetings in Tungchau [Tongzhou] the best revision service yet effected by our Wenli Committee was accomplished on Manuscripts that were put in circulation three years ago

Sheffield to ABCFM of Jan. 12, 1908). This plan was eventually only partly put into action. 11 See ABS and BFBS Reports and the China Mission Year Book of the respective years. 12 See ABS Report 1912, 327.

300

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

In October 1912, Sheffield resigned from die committee because of failing health.13 Wherry, who succeeded him as the chairman of the committee, stated that happily he [Sheffield] has been able to finish the drafts of the books as­ signed to him, and to view the most important of those drafted by oth­ ers, so that the translation of the larger part of the Old Testament will benefit by his labors.14 The German August Nagel (1869-1953) was elected as Sheffield’s succes­ sor on the committee. He had come to Hong Kong and Lilang 李 朗 (today part of Shenzhen/Guangdong) with the Basel Mission in 1894 and was also involved in Bible revision in the Hakka dialect. Wherry wrote that Nagel represented to a certain extent the German type in Biblical criticism, but proved to be by no means a radical, and readily accepted the basis of translation we were instructed to follow, the text and marginal readings of the English Revised version.15 It is revealing that Nagel was only elected now as Sheffield’s successor, instead of five years earlier as the successor of GenShr, which would have been his logical position as a German replacing a German. Under Shef­ field’s leadership every possible effort was spent to re-elect die old High Wenli committee, and this was the reason for Pearce's instead of Nagel’s election in 1908. Another change of committee took place when Maclagan did not return from his furlough of 1912 because of his election as secretary of the For­ eign Missions Committee of the English Presbyterian Mission in 1914. No successor was elected to take his place. Though the work of the committee had not been in disharmony up to that point, the actual amount of completed translation work was relatively small. From this time onwards, however, under the new chairman Wherry and with a slightly modified committee, the meetings of the committee were much more regular and the amount of revised material increased rapidly. The third meeting of the committee in 1913 took place in Fuzhou, the location of the mission station of Lloyd, who could not leave home. Wherry described the meeting, at which the five books of the Pentateuch were completed: 13 Sheffield eventually died in Beidaihe on July 1, 1913. 14 ABS Report 1913, 353. 15 Personal Report ofJ. Wlierry 1912/13, 3 (DOHPC. USA).

U n io n V e rsio n : O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t io n

301

From the day of my arrival [May 6], the eight of us,—four members of the committee and four Chinese writers,—spent six days of the week, for nearly eight weeks, in continuous session. Our hours were from nine to twelve in the morning, and from one forty five to four fifteen in the afternoon; and we kept them without missing a single day. Besides this we used many laborious hours in the evening with our writers in pre­ paring for the day sessions. ... But we set out to finish the Pentateuch, and under the Master’s gracious care we accomplished our task. ... As Mr. Kuo [Guo] and I were the only ones who could communicate with all the writers,16 the heavier burden fell on us, and we were wearied be­ fore our separation. Our sessions were characterized by great harmony. There were but few places where there was a divergence of views in the final statement, and in these few there was always a graceful acquies­ cence in the decision of the majority.17 The ha y of the meeting was also stressed by Pearce, who attributed this to ct that there was from the outset entire agreement as to the style of Wenli to be desired for the medium of rendering into Chinese; this was regarded as settled, and with it most of the questions that had formerly arisen in re­ lation to the Hebrew idiom.18 The fourth meeting, again in Fuzhou, took place from April 1 through June 15, 1914. Its harmonious spirit was again emphasized, and was demon­ strated by the accomplishment of the final revision of the twelve books from Joshua through Esther and a few of the Psalms. The translators had hoped for the completion of the book of Psalms, but as one of the members of the committee was called away on the 15th of June, and the heat and moisture of a Foochow summer were ex­ hausting the vigor of our Chinese writers, we reluctantly decided to give up the last sixteen days of June, and adjourn to a more invigorating sea­ son.19 Soon afterwards, the German Nagel had to move from Hong Kong to his old mission station in Lilang because of the outbreak of the First World

16 Mandarin, the dialect of Wherry and his assistant Guo, was apparently understood by all the Chinese assistants, who spoke Cantonese (assistants of Pearce and Nagel) or Fuzhou (Lloyd’s assistant) as their native dialects. 17 Personal Report ofJ. Wherry 1912/13. 2 (DOHPC. USA). "

Quoted in i4fi5 Report 1914, 349.

19 Personal Report o f J. Wherry 1913/14, 1 (DOHPC, USA). It is somewhat puzzling that, according to this report, only the Chinese translators were affected by the beat.

302

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

War. Although this made him unable to attend the final meeting, he com­ municated by mail with the other members of the committee. This meeting took place from September 22 through December 27, 1915, again in Fuz­ hou. Not only the remaining 20 books of the OT were completed, but the earlier translation of Proverbs was once again revised. Job was revised a second time after the close of the meeting by correspondence. Wherry’s report gives an idea of the proceedings and the spirit of the meeting: At the very beginning of our joint session, our manuscripts made it ap­ parent that in our translations we had to a very large extent come to an agreement before meeting together. To this extent accordingly, our work was mostly one of copying. But even where our renderings were identi­ cal, we still felt at liberty to choose another, as more apt or more rhythmical. In places where our translation differed, we discussed them amicably; and usually a new study of our authorities ... brought us to an agreement of interpretation and expression. In only a few instances has our final text been decided by a mere majority, or, in other words, a di­ vided vote.20 No other phase of any translation committee in the process of the Union Version translations had ever reached such a degree of agreement and ef­ fectiveness. One factor contributing to this was the greater experience of the committee members Wherry, Pearce, and Lloyd; but, as the example of the Mandarin translation will show, this alone was not a guarantee for effi­ cient committee work. At least as important for the quick process of the last few years was the chairmanship of Wherry. Though Wherry and Sheffield were in total agreement as to translation principles, Sheffield’s leadership was charac­ terized by a far more authoritative and rigid style than that of Wherry. This is shown in Sheffield’s strongly critical opinions that he continually ex­ pressed about colleagues or the work of others. None of this kind of judg­ ment can be found in Wherry’s letters or other writings. Even the meeting places under Sheffield and Wherry reveal different styles of leadership. During Sheffield’s era, the meeting place was in his residence, Tongzhou, in the far north, even though the majority of the committee was from the south (Maclagan, Lloyd, and Pearce) and therefore had to travel great dis­ tances. Under Wherry, the committee met in the south, in Fuzhou, even though it was highly inconvenient for Wherry and his assistant to travel there from Peking.

20 Personal Report o f J. Wherry 1915/16, 1 (DOHPC, USA).

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

303

In the eyes o f Pearce, the translation work after the completion of the OT in committee work appeared as such: The Revision Committee has completed its work on the Wenli Old Tes­ tament. The hours immediately preceding the separation of our Com­ mittee brought wondrous uplift of heart. ...W e realized more than ever before the sacred sanctions of friendship and fellowship, the outcome of joint endeavour. ... During my thirteen years of service on the Com­ mittee there has been a kind of progressive revelation of the Christian spirit in co-workers, and nearer views have been afforded me of the possibilities that may lie in wider and fuller missionary union.21 Such a statement, from a member of a committee which had once been divided almost to the point of capitulation, is indeed noteworthy.

I l l u s t r a t io n 10:

W enli Union Version O ld Testament translation com m ittee. The names o f the Chinese translators are unknown; the W estern translators are (from left to right): L. Lloyd, J. W herry, T .W . Pearce, A. Nagel. (U ndated, courtesy o f A m erican Bible Society A r­ chives, N ew Y ork.)

11 Q uoted in LMS Report 1916, 104.

304

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

13.1.2. Editorial Work The translation was finished, but the task of harmonizing the Wenli and the Mandarin OT remained to be done, as well as the application of a new system of transliteration. Both committees planned to meet in the fall of 1916 to complete these last steps, as the Mandarin committee was expected to be finished with their translation by then as well.22 However, the Man­ darin committee did not proceed as quickly as hoped for, making a meeting of the two committees impossible. The Wenli translation committee, there­ fore, decided that the work of harmonization and transliteration would be done by its chairman, Wherry, and his Chinese assistant, Guo. Wherry and Guo devoted most of the year from the autumn of 1916 to the autumn of 1917 to this task. The text that the Mandarin committee had given to them was not finally revised, causing their harmonizing efforts to be frustrated to some degree and necessitating reworking. Still, Wherry did not take the Mandarin translation as the ultimate basis: I have for our committee，accepted a large part of the Mandarin render­ ings when they differed from the wenli, but have not done so in every case. Sometimes where the Mandarin committee have stuck to their text or interpretation, I have retained that of our wenli committee as the bet­ ter rendering. It is probably true, as Dr. Goodrich, chairman of the Mandarin committee says, that “the two versions are much nearer to each other than any two versions ever made," but they will not be in ab­ solute harmony. The differences, however, will be few, and of minor importance.23 The transliterations which had been used in the OT translation were ac­ cording to a new system employed by Schereschewsky It followed the Hebrew and Greek pronunciation rather than English, as had been done hitherto. In 1914，the Mandarin translation committee had already pub­ lished an edition of the Pentateuch with this new system and had asked for criticism.23 But because “many anomalies and objections" were met with, it was decided in 1917 to return to the old system with k>me modifications.26 This was to be applied to the Wenli translation by Wherry and Guo.

22 See ABS Report 1916, 356. 21 Personal Report o f J. m erry 1917, If. (DOHPC, USA). 24 See ch. 7.4.4. 25 See Giina Mission Year Book 1915, 474. 26 See Personal Report ofJ. Wherry 1918, 1 (DOHPC, USA).

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

305

For these reasons, this last phase of the work on the Wenli OT transla­ tion turned out to be a larger project than expected. Other circumstances contributing to the increase of work were the Bible societies’ decision that the translation of weights and measures were not, as decided in Shanghai in 1891,27 to be rendered into Chinese equivalents, but, as in the English Re­ vised Version and American Standard Version, according to the Hebrew system.2* Additionally, the Bible societies asked both the Mandarin and Wenli committees to furnish their translation with topical headlines as in the can Standard Version.29 mroofteading was done both under the auspices of the BFBS in Shanghai, and by Wherry and Guo in Peking. This last proofreading also included a few final corrections to the text.30 The very last work on the sheets of the first edition was finished by the two translators in Peking just shortly before Wherry’s death on December 29, 1918. 13.1.3. Question of New Testament and Publication of Wenli Bible Long before the completion of the OT, it had been decided that the NT in Easy and High Wenli ought not to be combined. Gibson, as the representa­ tive of the Easy Wenli committee, had started to work on a unification of the two versions in 1907,31 but soon stopped because he felt only an inde­

27 See principle 3, see ch. 11.1. M In Neh. 7:71 for example, the Union Version transliterates the measurements: 金子 二萬達利克，銀子二千二百彌拿-**20,000 darics of gold and 2,200 minas of sil­ ver" (English Revised Version and American Standard Version: **twenty thousand daris of gold, and two thousand and two hundred pounds of silver"). In instances where the traditional Chinese measurement corresponds to the Hebrew original, it is employed, such as zfiou 肘 for “cubit” (Gen. 6: IS) or in the NT the traditional Chi­ nese time measure system for the traditional Roman system (see fh. 70). 29 See Personal Report o f J. Wherry 1918, If. (DOHPC, USA). 30 Wherry explained this last minor revision: "This has to be done skillfully in such a way as not to change the number of characters in each line, and thus necessitate the breaking up and resetting of the type-page" (Personal Report o f J. Wherry 1918, 3 (DOHPC, USA). J,

Sheffield wrote in a letter to ABS of Nov. 18, 1907 (quoted in Hills 1966, 69): "Dr. Gibson writes me that be is working on a tentative section of the New Testament (• bring the two versions into unity. As be is chiefly responsible for the literalistic stanq> which characterizes the Easy Wenli version, be will accomplish wonders if he eliminates this serious defect in his unification. He is a man of fine temper and not too old to learn and so there is good hope ahead."

306

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

pendent scholar should attempt this work.32 While Wherry, representing the High Wenli committee, admitted that the style of die High Wenli NT needed some “polishing,” he was against the amalgamation of the two ver­ sions, which would make no sense and only be “an unattractive patch­ work."33 With the re-election of die majority of the High Wenli NT translators into the OT translation committee, the ground was set for a combined High Wenli NT and the Wenli OT, being identical in style and translation princi­ ples. Thus the first edition of the Wenli Union Version Bible consisted of the 1907 High Wenli NT and the Wenli Union Version OT. This edition was not issued until June 25, 1919, two months after the Mandarin version, a delay caused by the shortage of paper during the World War. 13.1.4. Revision of New Testament Only half a year elapsed before the necessity for a revised NT was seen as too urgent to delay further action. The style of the NT was considered too crude to be combined with the OT. The need for revision was made even more compelling because the Mandarin translation had already gone through a NT revision for the unification of the style with the Old Testa­ ment.34 On January 10, 1920, Bondfield proposed the High Wenli NT revi­ sion to the BFBS in London.33 A plan was made to secure translators of the OT translation committee for the revision to make sure that the style of ttie Testaments would be identical. Pearce’s Chinese assistant in Hong Kong and Guo, Wherry’s assistant in Peking, were to do the first draft of revi­ sion, Mbringing it up to the standard of the Old Testament and removing obvious blemishes.”36 This was to be supervised by the Western translators who still remained in China, Pearce and Nagel.37 As Nagel's scholarship was considered to be inferior to Pearce’s, he was only to act as an “asses32 See letter from Bondfield to BFBS of Jan. 10, 1920. 3J Letter from Bondfield to BFBS of Jan. 10, 1920. M See ch. 13.2.7. 15 On Jan. 16, 1920, Hykes wrote a letter to tbe ABS expressing his **cordial agreemeot” with Bondfield's plan. Most of Bondfield's letter was subsequently published in (he ABS Report 1921 (326f.). 16 Letter from Bondfield to BFBS of Jan. 10, 1920. 17 Sheffield and Wherry had both died, Lloyd bad retired from service in China imme­ diately after the completion of the OT, Maclagan was working in London, and GenShr, who had never really done any Wenli OT translation anyway, had left China in 1910, only to return again in 1924.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

307

sor or adviser".3®Nagel finally did not take part in the proposed scheme, but left on a furlough to Germany in the beginning of 1921. Nevertheless, Pearce, Pearce’s assistant, and Guo started the revision work according to Bondfield's plan. By the end of 1921, the revision was already drawing to a close39 when Pearce's “protracted ill health and odier duties" stopped him from working on the revision.40 Not until 1922 was die NT revision fin­ ished and published in a single volume. In 1923, the complete Wenli Union Version with the revised NT was published. Unlike the Mandarin NT revision, the actual changes in the Wenli revi­ sion only amounted to comparatively few. In the first chapter of John there are only four changes, all of which replaced peculiarities in the former translation. Verse 9’s (“there was the true light”）是 有眞光 一“this bad true light”一was changed to 是 乃 眞 光 ： “this was (the) true light”；the rather flippant translation of verse 46 (“come and s e e " ) , 來 ，試 觀 之 — - come, have a look at it," was revised to the more formal 來 觀 之 — **come and look at it”；the instrumental particle yi 以 was exchanged with the preposition 乎 in the phrase 充 +恩 寵 眞 理 一“fiill of grace (and) trutfT ("full of grace and truth," verse 14); and shi 識 一“recognize, to be acquainted with"—instead of zhi 知 —44know"—was en^loyed in verse 10 (“know”). 13.2. Mandarin Translation Mateer was again elected chairman of the Mandarin translation committee. He called in the first meeting of the translators for die summer of 1908 in Zhifu, but he had to leave the meeting early because of illness and eventu­ ally died on his way home to Dengzhou. Tradition has it that his last words before dying were: - Pray that I may be spared to finish the translation of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms.”41 Goodrich, the only member who had been witfi the committee from its beginning on, was elected chairman of the committee in place of Mateer.42 M See letter from Bondfield to BFBS of Jan. 10, 1920. See ABS Report 1921, 327. 40

See ABS Report 1922, 253. Quoted in BFBS Report 1909, 459 "Since we finished our work in revision Committee for the Summer, our chairman. Dr. Mateer has been called borne, and we are much bereaved. I si^pose I shall have to lake tbat extra responsibility from this dme onward. They write wishing me to do so. I am the only origiinl oiember of the Committee left!” (letter from Goodrich to ABCFM of Nov. 17, 1908).

308

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

As a successor on the translation committee, the Southern Presbyterian missionary Absalom Sydenstricker (1852-1931) from Zhenjiang (Jiangsu) was elected. Sydenstricker, in China since 1880, had been interested in Bible translation for a long time, being unhappy with both the existing Chinese and English translations.43 After the Mandarin Union Version NT was published, he went “over the whole New Testament widi a good deal of care, reading and comparing die revision with the Greek and also with other translations,"44 and came to the conclusion that “it is not by any means ... as perfect as it can be made.”45 Nevertheless he praised it as a definite improvement over other versions, especially the Peking Version, in its greater faithfulness to the Greek text its more colloquial Manda­ rin. His position on the en^}loyment of ial Chinese in die Mandarin translation was somewhat along Mateer's line. In the ABS Report (1909, 238), Sydenstricker was described as qualified for the position on the translation committee tfirough his careful study and valuable criticisms of the Union Version New Testament, as well as by his wide knowledge of Mandarin and his long experience in China. The second meeting, which occupied the five months from June though October 1909, and in which Sydenstricker took part, turned out to be a fiasco. An enraged Sydenstricker left the meeting in Zhifu on July 26 and turned in his resignation in September. In several letters, written for the executive committee in care of Hykes, Sydenstricker explained why it was impossible for him to work on the committee, and though his description of the committee work is by no means objective, it gives an idea of the proceedings. His complaints about the principles of translation were that the translation was neither colloquial nor faithful enough;46 moreover, it was not a translation from the Hebrew 4, Cf. Buck 1936a, 50f. Two biographical novels of Sydenstricker and his wife Caro­ line (Fighting Angel [1936a】and The Exile [1936b]) written by their daughter, the later Nobel prize laureate Pearl Sydenstricker Buck (1892-1973), describe Syden­ stricker's involvement in mission work and especially Bible translation work quite accurately. 44 Sydenstricker 1908, 266. 45 Ibid., 269. 44 "By idiomatic translation, I do not mean the transfer of Hebrew and English idioms into the Chinese text. ... All the truth and every truth contained in the Hebrew text can be rendered into good Mandarin, without resorting to the vicious plan of trans­ ferring English and Hebrew idioms, which generally obscure the text, rather than translate" (Sydenstricker ms., 1908a).

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

309

but from the American Standard Version.47 Nevertheless, Sydenstricker’s final reason for resignation was another one: The Revision Committee is seriously embarrassed in its work by the fact that one member of the Committee—and he the leading one, exercising the controlling influence—is entirely ignorant of Hebrew. I refer to the Rev. F.W. Bailer. Whatever other qualifications he may have for trans­ lating work, his entire ignorance of Hebrew de facto disqualifies him for Old Testament translation work. Despite this fatal defect, he is the most prominent and the leading mem­ ber of the Committee and is laboring in every way to make the transla­ tion his own translation, supported by the Committee. 1. Early in the year Mr. Bailer sent to the other members of the Committee his translations of their work; so that they each had his trans­ lation before them in doing their work. A subsequent comparison of the different translations shows clearly that Mr. Bailer’s was closely followed—in places literally copied—by some members of the Com­ mittee.

MThe rendering of the Psalms especially is a slavishly literal translation of the American revised, including the transfer into Chinese of the Hebrew idioms, the italicized words, the mistakes and all! Very many of these idioms are unintelligible to the Chinese. There is no need for this" (ibid.). Sydenstricker referred to the Psalms because only these were translated during his time of translation work com­ mittee. With the **italicized words," he referred to those words in the English Re­ vised Version and American Standard Version which are marked as not being part of the original text, yet essential for an understanding. For example: “All thy garments smell ^ m y rrh , and aloes, and cassia" (Psalm 45:8, American Standard Version and English Revised Version). The Union Version translators adapted this procedure by underlining the specific terms with a dotted line, e .g .: 你的衣服，都有没藥沉香 肉 熱 一“Your clothes all have the fragrance o f myrrh, aloe, (and) cassia." But the Union Version translators neither translated all the italicized words (“Thine arrows are sharp; The peoples fall under thee; They are in the heart of the king’s enemies," Psalm 45:5, American Standard Version and English Revised Version—is in the Union Version translated w ith :你的箭鋒快，射屮工敵之心•离民仆倒在 你以 K 一“Your arrows are shaip (and) hit into the heart of the king's enemies; myriad peoples fall before you"), nor did they limit this procedure to the italicized words in the English versions (“With the east wind Thou breakest the ships of Tarshish," Psalm 48:7, American Standard Version and English Revised Version —is in the Union Version上帝W ，你用电風打破他施的船隻一 “God! You use the east wind to break the ships of Tarshish"). The Union Version translators were willing to acknowledge the “large obligations to the English and American revis­ ers," yet the “Mandarin translation has been directly from the Greek and Hebrew" (Lewis 1919, 4).

310

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

2. When Mr. Bailer sent me his translation of the larger portion of text assigned to me for translati(Mi, he suggested that I take his translation in lieu of making my own, vdiich of course I declined to do. 3. In the Committee room Mr. Bailer used every means to make the whole translation his own, to the intense disgust of at least some of the Chinese assistants. ... 4. In the review by the Committee of the portions assigned to me Mr. Bailer treated me with the greatest rudeness. ... Finally at the last meeting in which I was present Mr. Bailer asked me to resign from the Committee. I was blamed for being “happy” in the work, as if anyone could be happy doing work under such circumstances! His sole objection to me was that I did not fall in wit^i his plan—to make the translation his work, for which he has been so strenuously labor­ ing.4* (Underlines by Sydenstricker.) It is very apparent diat here was a clash between two men of very strong will.49 To confound the matter, Bailer, though a missionary of the CIM, was a Baptist, a doctrinal orientation which Sydenstricker could not ac­ cept30 and a fact which surely encouraged him in his prejudices against Bailer. Nevertheless, Sydenstricker's statements about Bailer’s dominant position in points one and two are quite plausible, given the fact that Bailer was the first of the translators to be freed by his mission society from any other mission work for the exclusive work of Bible translation. This gave him more time for the translation of his and other parts of the OT, at a time when the other translators had only translated single books if any at all.31 Furthermore, Sydenstricker’s complaint about Bailer’s lack of knowledge 4S

Sydenstricker ms., 1908b. In a more indirect form, Sydenstricker criticized Bailer's ignorance of Hebrew (and of spoken Mandarin) publicly in the Chinese Recorder (1912, 595).

49

Broomhall (1923, 5), Bailer’s biographer, remarks: “Those who knew him in later life will not be surprised to learn that as a lad he was something of a handful to manage," and Bailer himself remarked about his strong will: "Refhictory ore yields the best gold, though it takes much labour to get it” (quoted ibid.). Sydenstricker, on the other hand, owing to his inability to renounce his opinions, was in almost con­ stant conflict with other missionaries, as repeatedly described in the biographies by his daughter.

30

See Buck 1936a, 72f. This is also shown in the ABS Report (1913, 353): “The Rev. F.W. Bailer has fin­ ished his draft of the section of the Old Testament allotted to him and has gone over several other books." In 1908, Bailer additionally published a metrical translation of the Psalms (the author is indebted to Prof. Nicolas Standaert, Leuven, for this in­ formation. A copy of this translation can be found in the library of the University of Leuven.)

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

311

of Hebrew is also justified, as Bailer, unlike the other translators, had never received any formal theological education. Goodrich, though chairman, was apparently not in a position of great authority, in contrast to the situation with Mateer as chairman. 13.2.1. New Testament Translation by Sydenstricker Sydenstricker went home after his early withdrawal from the committee work and translated his own New Testament together with his Chinese as­ sistant Zhu Baohui 朱 寶 惠 ，who had also taken part in this short episode of committee work.52 The spirit in which he commenced this work is demon­ strated in an episode after his return from the Union Version committee, de by Buck (1936a, 185): are you going to do now?” we asked. “Make the translation my­ self," he replied. “So you will know it’s right?" asked Carie [his wife], laughing. But Andrew [pseudonym for Absalom (Sydenstricker)] looked at her with surprise and gravity. “Exactly,” he replied. The first edition of his translation of the Gospels was already issued in 1913. Its preface read: The aim of this work is to make the Gospel more intelligible and read­ able to the Chinese Christians. ... It cannot be denied that only a very small proportion of the Chinese Christians habitually read the Bible or even part of it. There are doubtless several reasons for this. One of these is the fact that the Bible in Mandarin has not been yet put into a form that will enable the Chinese to read it intelligibly, with ease and pleasure. One of the greatest objections on the book on the part of the Chinese is the style— the make up. Another objection perhaps equally serious, is its lack of clearness, to which indeed the largely foreignized style adds not a little. This statement might have sounded innocent, had it originated from anyone other than Sydenstricker at any time other than after his split with the Un­ ion Version committee; as it was, it was a direct broadside to the Union Version project, and a continuation of his devastating criticism begun in the pages of the 1912 Chinese Recorder (pp. 592-5%). If he had had some publicity with his article, he did not receive much for the New Testament.

52 Though this translation was a combined effort, it nevertheless is referred to in this paper as Sydenstricker's translation. This is done to distinguish it from the succeed­ ing revision by Zhu and—as will be shown—because the principles of translation were Sydenstricker's rather than Zhu’s.

312

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

No contemporary review of it is known to the author,53 and Sydenstricker had to pay for the publication himself. Buck (1936b, 190f.) described wliat this meant to his family. This passage reveals a personal aspect of the his­ tory of Chinese Bible translation that has not been illuminated otherwise: But the day came when the work [of translation] was finished, and there was no money to publish it except what we could spare from our already too meager salary. They talked it over, Cane and Andrew, she thinking of her children and he of his book. She said, “But, Andrew, the children can't have less clothing than they have now—I turn and patch and re­ make, and I dare not cut down on their food.” “I ” he said, despairing and longing. Thi looked at him and saw what it meant to him, and how it was his dream, and so at last she said, “We will do it somehow. Every imnith take five dollars away and set it aside, and we will do on what is left. I must cut down a penny or two anywhere I can." He was h^ipy again, although thereafter the children came to diink that Father's New Testament was a sort of well down \v1iich were lost the toys they longed for, or a new dress a little girl hoped for, or the many books for 咖 ch they hungered. They learned to ask wistfully, “Mother, when Father is finished with the New Testament, may we buy something we want?" They will never forget their mother’s face when they asked this question. She looked angry, but not at them, and she said very firmly, “Yes! We will each one of us buy the thing we want most.” But we never did, for she died before Andrew ever finished. He printed edition after edition, revising each to make it more perfect, and all her life she went poorer because of the New Testament. It robbed her of die tiny margin between bitter poverty and small comfort. It is not known to the author how many revised editions of the Gospels were printed; the complete NT was first published in 1929 at the Nanking Theological Seminary (Jinling shenxueyuan 金陵 神 學 院 )，where Syden­ stricker had worked since 1921 as dean of the Correspondence School. Though Sydenstricker’s NT translation was mainly based on the Greek,54 “the best available translations, both English and Chinese, have [also】all been laid under tribute."53 The English translation which he most

5, Buck (1936a, 196) mentioned that Sydenstricker “was heaped with criticism” by his fellow missionaries for the translation which was "too ’common’ in its style." 54 As the translation of verses 24 and 27 in the first chapter of John show, Syden­ stricker used a modern edition of the Greek text (cf. ch. 8.1.2). Sydenstricker’s knowledge of Greek and Hebrew is elsewhere described as profound (see Jian 1939). 55 Preface in 1913 edition of the Gospels.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

313

extensively used, being closest to his ideal of independence and colloquial language, was the translation by Moffatt.56 He chose a style of language that was “clear, concise, idiomatic Mandarin or perhaps rather ‘pai hua’ [baihua].n57 The choice of this style of language is clearly displayed in Sydenstricker's 1913 translation of verse 15 in the first chapter of John (“This was He of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has a higher rank than I, for he existed before me’”) ：這 就 是 我 所 說 過 那 在 我 以 後 要 來 的 ，他比 我 大 。因 爲 先 有 他 ，後有我 一“This is the one of whom I said that he will come after me and is greater than me. For first was he and then was I.” Even the English translation of his rendering reveals his effort to trans­ late this verse in logical and colloquial language. This becomes even more obvious in comparison to the Mandarin Union Version: 這 就 是 我 曾 說 有 — 位 在 我 以 後 來 ，反 成 了 在 我 以 前 的 • 囚 爲 他 本 來 在 我 以 前 一 “This is the one of whom I said there is a person who comes after me, but was yet before me; because he originally was before me.” In the sometimes very uncommon terminology dnd translation, Sydenstricker’s independence from other Chinese translations becomes apparent. In verse 3, he used you 有一 “exist” for yivonai, which all other Chinese translators rendered with a term for “create”. In verse 28, he translated 7iepav t o u 'IopSavou with 約但河乘一 “east of the Jordan.” Though the Greek (and all English and Chinese versions up to that point58) literally says “beyond the Jordan," the passage does in fact refer to the east because it was written from the viewpoint of the west side.59 Sydenstricker’s schol­ arship, so well displayed in the translation of this verse, could be doubted by the translation of verse 39 with 約到午前十點鐘 一“about ten o ’clock in the morning.” Here Sydenstricker wrongly interpreted the “tenth hour” of the Greek text, which, according to the Roman system of time measure, refers to four o’clock in the afternoon.60 For the Greek d i n a t a (“bloods”） 56 See Buck ms.，n.d., 15 (DOHPC, USA), later published in the September 1932 issue of The Presbyterian Survey); Buck 1936a, 196. J. Moffatt published The His­ torical New Testament in 1901 and The New Testament: A New Translation in 1913 (complete Bible in 1922). Moffatt took in his translation “the same freedom that would be granted him if be were dealing with a Greek classic” (The Historical New ament 1901, XIX). His translation is described as displaying “brilliance and ked independence from other versions" (see Comfort 1992b, 276). 57 Prefoce in 1913 edition of the Gospels. For baihua, see ch. 1, fn. 5. 58 Including the version by MofTatt. 59 See Newman/Nida 1980, 35. 60 Cf. fn. 70.

314

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

in verse 13, which is rendered by most translations with xueqi 血氣 一“life energy (literally: blood and breath)"61—Sydenstricker chose an explanatory kind of translation: fum u 父 母 一“p aren ts' A similar translation is found in verse 14, where a a p ^ (“flesh”）is translated with ren 人 一 “person.” In an attempt to make the translation highly intelligible, Sydenstricker did not try to make a concordant translation, but rather one which gave different meanings of a possibly identical term in the Greek text. In verse 10, he translated the same Greek term—K6o(io^—with three different words (shishang 世上 一 “in the world,” shijie 世界 一“world,” and shiren 世人 一 “people of the world"). Verse 16 (“For of his fullness we have all received") was rendered in his version with 從 他 滿 足 的 恩 ，我們都蒙了恩 一“from his full grace, we have all received grace "—Sydenstricker added a term for “grace” (en 恩、 ）twice to make the sentence less abstract and thus more comprehensible. Also, Sydenstricker tried to avoid the use of pronouns wherever possi­ ble, especially if referring to God or any derivation thereof. This also is an attempt to give the biblical text an indigenous Chinese style. Buck’s thesis that Sydenstricker’s translation paved the way for die “May Fourth Movement” and that the Chinese were only “too patriotic ever to recognize as forerunner a white man and a Christian” seems some­ what farfetched,62 considering its small circulation and its shortcomings; still, it was a remarkable work. The reason for its commencement, how­ ever—a desire not to cooperate with other missionaries—may also have caused it to fail as a potential version of importance. There was no hope for the success of a version which was translated in opposition to the Union Version and thus against the Bible societies and the greatest majority of the missionaries. 13.2.2. Re-Formation of Committee In the search for a successor for Sydenstricker, the executive committee again encountered considerable difficulties. In May 1910, James Walter Lowrie (1856-1920), nephew of the murdered Delegates’ Version transla­ tor W.M. Lowrie,63 agreed to join the committee as the successor of Sy­ denstricker. Lowrie, who also was a member of the executive committee, had come with the APM to China in 1883 and worked in Baoding (Hebei). 61 See Zetzsche 1995b, 47. 62 Buck 1936a, 196. For “May Fourth Movement,” see ch. 14.1. 63 Seech. 4.1.2.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

315

He was unable to take part in a meeting in 1910 because he could not pre­ pare for it,64 and in 1911 he resigned “to accept a prominent post in the mission board in China."65 He proposed a successor in Edwin E. Aiken (1859-1951), a missionary who had been with the ABCFM but had re­ signed from its service in 1912. He had been in Tianjin and Peking since 1885 and had, according to the testimony of his former mission society, “distinguished himself by his unusual mastery of the Mandarin."66 Never­ theless, instead of Aiken, the LMS missionary William Hopkyn Rees (1859-1924) was elected.67 Rees had been in China since 1883 and had lived in Peking for a number of years; he also resigned shortly after his election, though, when he accepted a position with the Christian Literature Society of China. Now Aiken was finally elected to the vacant position. 13.2.3. Continuation of Union Version Committee Work After Resignation of Sydenstricker At the first meeting of June 22 through September 17, 1908, the translation of Genesis and Psalms 1-34 was completed. Though Genesis was prepared for publication, it was not published until 1914 as part of the Pentateuch. The second meeting, during which the problematic episode with Syden­ stricker took place, occupied the five months from June through October 1909. In the first three months, the translation committee finished the re­ maining part of the Psalter and reviewed the first 34 Psalms again. The book of Psalms was published in its first edition in 1910. In the last two months of the meeting, the New Testament was once again revised. Despite the fact that the 1907 general conference had decided that all three Union Version editions ought to be circulated for three years without revisional changes,68 the Mandarin OT translation committee was instructed to undertake the revision of the NT a year earlier than planned because of “there being so large a demand for the book and so great a desire for it in different forms."69 The revised NT was published by the BFBS and the 64 See ABS Report 1911, 325; China Mission Year Book 1911, 390. 65 Letter from ABCFM to ABS of Sept. 24, 1912. 66 Ibid. 67 This caused some confusion. Goodrich wrote in a letter to the ABCFM of Jan. 19, 1912: “Mr. Aiken is not elected, but Mr. Rees of the LMS” (underline by Good­ rich). Cf. fn. 78. M See ch. 12.2. 69 ABS Report 1910, 298.

316

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

ABS separately in 1910. To the first chapter of John diere were only two changes made, showing the limited character of die revision.70 The n»eting in 1910 occupied the months from early June through September 13. Once again the meeting place was Zhifu. Goodrich, Bailer, Lewis, and Allan went through the books of Job and Exodus, and only Al­ lan Mfelt obliged to leave" before the translation of Job was finished.71 That this meeting was reportedly “a most harmonious and profitable session"72 must be seen in contrast to the experience with Sydenstricker the year be­ fore. The book of Job was sent out to be published, and it appeared in print in 1911. 13.2.4. Full Support by Bible Societies The next meeting was supposed to take place from February through April 1911, but this plan was frustrated by the outbreak of the plague in northern China. Goodrich used the opportunity to take a furlough at the beginning of 1911，and it was understood that during his absence no meeting would be held.73 Shortly before he left, Goodrich wrote to Bondfield, the general secretary of the executive committee, about his future as a Bible or: When we return from the U.S. I shall be 76, and I shall have i missionary service 47 years. It is plain to me that I ought not to under­ take to do just as I have done for the past twenty years. With one excep­ tion only [the committee meeting in Tongzhou in 1899], I have always left home for Committee meetings, working with the Committee in Chefoo [Zhifu], Shanghai, and Tengchoufu [Dengzhou]. Is the Bible trans­ lated under similar conditions anywhere else in the world, some of the

70 In verse 39, the “tenth hour (= 4:00 p.m.)" was translated in the 1910 edition with dishidian zhong 第 十 點 純 一“the tenth hour"—instead of shenzheng 屮TK_“four o'clock (according to the traditional Chinese time measure system)"—of the earlier editions. Although this change was aimed at a more colloquial translation it was likely to be confused with shidian zhong 十 點 紐 一“ten o’clock,” so that this verse was returned to its original form in the 1919 edition. The other change in the 1910 edition was the translation of the imperative verb 18e—**look"—in verses 29, 36, and 47. In the early editions of the Mandarin Union Version it was rendered with nimen kan 你們吞 一“look”一which lacked the emphasis of the imperative form of the Greek original. The 1910 revision changed this to kanna 看 哪 一“look,” which is a colloquial form with the exclamatory particle na. This last change was criticized in 1919 as being a "strange and needless literalism” (Murray 1919, 441). 71 See ABS Report 1911, 325; China Mission Year Book 1911, 390. 72 ABS Report 1911, 325; China Mission Year Book 1911, 390. 7, See China Mission Year Book 1911, 390.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

317

translators traveling hundreds (sometimes more than a thousand) miles to their place of meeting? Certainly our work thus far has been done un­ der rather difficult conditions. Do not most translators live in the same place, or not widely separated? For myself I cannot undertake to travel far, and live away from home in the future. This will mean that, if ar­ rangements cannot be made for living and working here, I must retire from the Committee.74 The proposal for a common place of living and working for the translators was supported by the executive committee on the grounds that a continua­ tion of the translation under the former conditions would occupy at least twelve more years, a time that would possibly exceed the remaining lifespan of many of the aging translators. Bondfield reported that Good­ rich's mission society (ABCFM), as well as Lewis’s (American Methodist Episcopal Mission), Rees’s (LMS), and Allan’s mission society (Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society), were all willing to or had already released their missionaries for translation work, under the condition that the Bible societies pay their salaries. Only the CIM, Bailer’s mission society, did not require the Bible societies to pay his salary.75 Bondfield suggested that the support of the Bible societies, which would include housing accommoda­ tions and four of the five Western translators' salaries,76 should start in January 1913 and last for V h years (until June 1916), the time during which it was hoped to finish the Old Testament translation. The translators were expected not to take any furloughs during this time.77 The three Bible societies agreed to this proposal, and Peking was decided upon as the place of living and working.78

74 Quoted in a report of Bondfield of Jan. 11, 1912. 75 Cf. cb. 13.2. 76 The Chinese translators had been paid £70-80 a year, which would be continued (see report of Bondfield of Jan. 11, 1912). 77 See ibid. n The position of Aiken still presented an obstacle in the whole scheme. When he was elected as a translator in September 1912, he was still in America. Because he had resigned from his service with the ABCFM, it refused to pay for his travel expenses back to China (see letter from ABCFM to ABS of Sept. 24, 1912). The APM, which was then asked to pay because Aiken was to replace the Presbyterian Lowrie (which was actually not the case, see above), was also not willing to take up his travel ex­ penses (see letter from APM to ABS of Oct. 17, 1912), so that Aiken was eventually sent back to China at the cost of the Bible societies.

318

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

When all the translators were settled in Peking,79 tfiey started the com­ mittee work in April 1913. After only a few weeks, though, Allan finally had to resign. Goodrich explained that Allan 44found die work too strenu­ ous, and was obliged, to our great grief, to retire from the too confining labors of translation";80 elsewhere his resignation is attributed to reasons of ill health.81 No successor for Allan was elected, so that the remaining part of the translation was done by four Western translators—Goodrich, Bailer, Lewis, and Aiken—with their respective Chinese assistants. Considerable progress had been made on the preliminary work before the actual committee meeting. Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy had been gone over by almost all of die committee members, and Bailer had worked through Proverbs, Song of Solomon, a part of Isaiah, and Ecclesi­ astes.82 On April 13, 1913, the committee commenced working on the third and fourth books of the Pentateuch, Leviticus and Numbers, which they finished before they separated on June 20 for individual work during die summer. They came together as a committee again on September 18, and, in the last months of 1913 and January 1914，finished the translation of Deuteronomy and revised Genesis and Exodus once again. The Pentateuch was published in 1914 as the first edition with a new system of translitera­ tion.83 After the earlier publication of the Psalms and Job, this was the last of the separate publications of OT parts. In 1914, Joshua, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Isaiah were finished in committee work. Goodrich remarked in his report with obvious relief: There has been no change in the personnel of the committee, and no loss of time in side issues ... but each member has held steadily to the work of translation.*4

79

Goodrich (quoted in ABS Report 1914, 349) reported about this process: MAfter long and sometimes exasperating efforts, we at length succeeded in renting very good Chinese houses in Peking, which after spending a good deal of patience and time and money upon them, have been made quite comfortable.”

80

Quoted in ABS Report 1914, 349. See NBSS Quarterly Record 1914, 235; China Mission Year Book 1914, 454.

82

Ecclesiastes had also been revised by Goodrich and Proverbs by Goodrich and Lewis (see BFBS Report 1913, 456; ABS Report 1913, 353; report of Bondfield of Jan. 11， 1912).

S3

See ch. 13.1.2.

U Quoted in ABS Report 1915, 373.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

319

The translation work now was done in daily meetings of three hours each with the rest of the day reserved for individual work, thus making it possi­ ble to work through the whole year without month-long interruptions as in 1913. In 1915, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, and Hosea were translated. The former goal of June 1916 for the completion of their trans­ lation had already been postponed to the end of 1916 and beyond.85 In 1916, the remaining books were translated with the exception of die last part of 2 Kings and the two books of Chronicles, which were eventually completed in the first weeks of 1917. 13.2.5. Chinese Assistants The increasing contribution of the Chinese assistants was described by Bailer in 1919 (p. 59): A most interesting feature, however, was the growing keenness and in­ terest on the part of the teachers as they “caught on" to the idea of the revision. Each vied with the other in contributing his best to ensure both accuracy and good Chinese—a combination not easily obtained. The “run” of a sentence—the balance of its parts—the rhythm—the rounding off of a phrase—the different use of characters in certain connections, and a hundred and one other things that grow up with a man in the language in which he is born, were all considered and decided by them. No rendering was adopted, in regard to the Chinese of it, without their agreement. Many stumbling-blocks have thus been removed that would be apt to turn away an educated Chinese from reading the Scriptures be­ cause the translation was foreign in its usage of language. Goodrich, who in 1914 also mentioned that the teachers are **increasingly helpful,"86 described in a letter of 1918 the cooperation beween him, Bailer and dieir Chinese assistants in even stronger terms: Our teachers' work is invaluable, but it is in working with us, tasting words with us, feeling the quality and sensing “the swing of a Chinese sentence" with us, that their value chiefly appears. And now do you see why I am so happy in working with Mr. Bailer? Our ideas for the most part run together. Where there is a difference, it is generally in the u

The ABS Report 1916 (p. 358) said: “While it is impossible to definitely state that the Mandarin revisers may actually finish their work before the 31st of December, 1916, there are nevertheless good prospects of this aim being accomplished early in 1917."

M QaoteA in ABS Report 1915, 373.

320

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

matter of keeping close to the original. So it is a case, not of two equals one, but of four equals one, i.e. a union of four people into one. Will you pardon me for writing, once for all, that Mr. Bailer and I have given our lives to the study of the spoken language? Do we yield to our teachers in niceties of expression? Yes, but not without feeling and see­ ing with the teacher.87 (Underlines by Goodrich.) One o f the greatest differences in committee work under the leadership o f G oodrich was that the Chinese assistants had the right to vote in decisions regarding the final text.88 A photograph o f the complete OT translation committee was published in the Chinese Recorder (1918, frontispiece to August number) and fur­ nished with the names o f the Chinese (in English). Though not dated, it must be from 1913, the only time when the translators Aiken and Allan, who appear in the picture (besides Goodrich, Bailer, and Lewis), both worked on the committee.

Il l u s t r a t io n 11:

M andarin Union Version com m ittee 1913 (from left to right): Li, C . G oodrich, S. Lew is, C .W . A llan, W ang, E .E . Aiken, F .W . Bailer, Liu Dacheng. (C ourtesy o f A m erican Bible Society A rchives New Y ork.)

87

Letter from G oodrich to Bondfield o f June 18, 1918.

88 S e e c h . 11.4.2.2.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t io n

321

A nother photograph from 1915, contained in the American Bible Society A rchives, shows G oodrich, Bailer, Lewis, and Allan with their respective Chinese assistants. Bailer’s assistant in both photographs is still his NT assistant, Liu Dacheng; G oodrich’s teacher is called Li, and Lewis’s teacher is listed as Yan. In the 1913 photograph Aiken is without a Chinese teacher, and A llan’s teacher is named Wang; in the 1915 picture Aiken’s assistant is present but unnamed.

Il l u s t r a t io n 12:

M andarin Union Version com m ittee 1915 (from left to right): Liu Dacheng, F .W . B ailer, unknown, E .E . Aiken, C. Goodrich, Yan, S. Lew is, unknown. (C ourtesy o f A m erican Bible Society Archives, New Y ork.)

13.2.6. Editorial Work and Revision of Old Testament Aiken ended his committee work immediately after the translation was fin­ ished. Bailer had plans to go on a furlough in 1917, but delayed his plans to first finish the translation w ork.89 Lewis, on the other hand, left on a 89 See Finance Committee on Bible Revision, m inutes o f June 8, 1917.

322

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

furlough in July 1917, shortly after further revision work had been com­ menced. The editing work, which was then mostly done by Goodrich and Bailer, included, as in the Wenli translation, the adoption of a new system of transliteration as well as weights and measures.90 The revision work in­ cluded a fairly thorough revision of all of dieir earlier OT translations;91 this was finished by February 1918. 13.2.7. Revision of New Testament In March 1918, the revision finance committee decided to support the revi­ sion of the NT.92 The gap between the translation of the OT and the NT appeared to be too severe, especially in stylistic questions. But because it was considered most urgent to publish the complete Mandarin (and Wenli) Bible as soon as possible,93 only a limited revision was planned. The revi­ sion procedure and the changes the NT was to undergo were as1follows: It is Resolved that we request the remaining Translators of the New Testament, viz: Drs. Goodrich, Spencer Lewis, and Mr. Bailer, to com­ plete this correcting and improving of the New Testament without fur­ ther delay, and to keep such corrections and improvements within the following limits: 1• Changes such are as called for by the Revision of the Old Testament; e.g. in quotations, and in names of persons and places. 2. Removal of redundancies, such as superfluous pronouns and parti­ cles. 3. Correction of errors that have been brought to light since the com­ pletion of the translation. * Seech. 13.1.2. 91 Bailer (1919, 59) gives a number of 2,000 revisional changes done to the earlier edition of the n The revision committee, which was composed of one representative from each of the Mandarin and Wenli executive committees (in 1917 MacGillivray and Parker) and the agents of the three Bible societies, had been in existence since the 1891 meeting in Shanghai. Its importance grew firom 1913 on, the year the Mandarin translators' support by the Bible societies started. With the increasing significance of the finance committee, the Mandarin executive committee's importance decreased. The revision finance committee was dissolved after the revision of the NT was de­ cided upon, so that from that time all decisions regarding translation, revision, or editing rested with the Bible societies alone. 91 Bondfield wrote in a letter to Lewis of July 1, 1918: “There will be the greatest disappoindneot if the complete Bible is not in the hands of the people before the end of the year."

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

323

4. Removal of infelicities, where an improvement in the style of a phrase or paragraph is obviously called for. 5. Changes in translation which may be considered necessary as a result of criticisms that have come to hand. With regard to Nos. 1, 2, and 3, (which may be described as“editorial” changes,) we ask Dr. Goodrich and Mr. Bailer to copy out for the press all such changes as have been made already, and to make necessary changes in any books of the New Testament which may not have been dealt with. But with regard to Nos. 4 and 5, a list of passages showing the prqx)sed pi alterations should be prepared and submitted by mail to Dr.• Spencer Lewis and due weight should be given to his opinion on the proposed changes before any alterations are made.94 (Underline in original.) Points 1 and 3 were changes that did not need much discussion, as they had already been decided upon during the translation of the OT; point 2, on the other hand, could very well have been considered worthy of discussion. In Chinese, the choice of pronouns and particles for a great part determines the style of language, something which was again considered in point 4 ." Point 5 was of no great importance because few criticisms of the NT had come in after its publication.96 Goodrich and Bailer immediately started to work with the NT according to these principles, and had already prepared a list with the changes they deemed necessary by May 1, after which Bailer traveled to Shanghai to oversee the printing of the OT. Lewis, still on furlough in the United States, had been informed in the meantime about the proceedings on the NT and most strongly objected to them. He instead favored a more thorough revision by the complete com­ mittee, because the revisions that the committee had done on earlier OT parts showed that “the required changes were numerous in proportion to the length of time since the work was done.”97 He called for a postpone­ ment of the revision until his return to Shanghai in September.98 Goodrich, after learning about Lewis’s protest, lodged his own protest, a very unusual step for a man who hardly ever criticized any of his fellow translators: 94 Quoted in unsent letter from Bondfield to Lewis of June 28,1918. 95

This is also pointed out by Lewis in a letter to Bondfield of May 7, 1918.

96 See ibid. 97 *

Letter from Lewis to Bondfield of Apr. 2, 1918. See telegram from Lewis to Bondfield of June 11, 1918.

324

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

Dr. Lewis will be satisfied with nothing less dum to go throu典 the whole N.T., verse by verse to tbe end. ... I give honor to Dr. Lewis for all his worthy qualities of mind and heart, and for his most laborious and untiring efforts on the Bible, but I cannot work any longer on a Com­ mittee with him. In the end of our work he did not seem to respect my statements expressed in Committee, and he dominated my personality. But this is not the commanding reason \v1iy I can no longer consent to work with him 4in full Committee’. I might even consent to sink my own personality out of sight for the sake of the Bible. But I could not bear to see the N.T. greatly changed, as I am perfectly certain it would be in many places. And now I am going to be perfectly frank with you. Dr. Lewis after all the years we have worked together in Chinese, has not yet learned well the swing of a Chinese sentence.99 (Underlines by Goodrich.) Lewis nevertheless took part in the revision of the NT after his return to Shanghai in September, which meant that the complete NT had to be re­ vised once again.100 To understand the revision of the Mandarin Union Version NT, which did turn out to be quite substantial, it is helpful to see the development from the principles of translation under Mateer to those of Goodrich in 1918. Mateer described his principles of translation as: I. The words should be such as the people who speak Mandarin com­ monly use and understand. As far as possible both book words and words which are not 通 行 [tongxing] (widely current) should be avoided. ... II. The structure of the sentence should conform to the spoken language. III.The style should be clear and simple. ... IV.The style should be truly Chinese. It often happens that Mandarin written by or under the supervision of foreigners has, both in its words and idioms, more or less of a foreign savor.…101 According to these principles, Mateer’s main purpose was to translate the Bible into a Chinese which would not be modeled on the Greek (or Eng­ lish) original, but whose style should be indigenous, understandable by all. Mateer did not even mention questions of fidelity to the original text in his principles. 99 Letter from Goodrich to Bondfield of June 18, 1918. 100 See Bailer 1919, 59. '0, Mateer 1900a, 332ff.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

325

Goodrich’s translation principles went through a significant change in the process of the OT translation. In 1912 (p. 589f.), the first time he pub­ licly spoke about the Union Version translation,102 he described his princi­ ples as follows: 1. The language must be universal rather than local. ... 2. The language must be, like our King James Version, simple enough to be readily understood by all classes when read from the pulpit... 3. The rendering must be as near to the original Greek and Hebrew as the idiom of the language will permit. ... 4. The figures of speech, so far as possible, must be rendered directly and without paraphrase. ... Six years later, in 1918 (p. 552), Goodrich's principles read differently: (1) The rendering must be truly colloquial, like our "King James Bible,” easily understood by all who can read. (2) The language must be universal as q>posed to local Mandarin. (3) The style, while easily understood, must be high enough to be chaste. (4) The translation must be a close rendering of the original. (5) The illustrations must be, as far as possible, translated, not para­ phrased. When he wrote the 1912 principles, Goodrich was to a much greater de­ gree under Mateer’s influence for an easy and indigenous Mandarin. Point 2 of the 1912 principles was changed from the requirement of understandibility when read aloud, to understandability only for those who can read—an important distinction, especially for China, with a classical writ­ ten language that is not understood when read aloud, and widi a high per­ centage of illiterate population during that time.103 The call for a higher style in the 1918 principles (point 3) was not listed at all in the earlier guidelines. One reason for this change of attitude must be attributed to the greater experience Goodrich had gained from intensive non-stop translation between 1912 and 1918. Another point of consideration for Goodrich’s change of attitude, how­ ever, was the translators' changing perception of the Chinese language and the relative prospects for the Union Version translations in the different styles. By 1918, it was clear that the Easy Wenli Union Version would no 102 “For the first time in the twenty years of ray connection with this Committee, of which I am the only charter member, I have opened my mouth to speak of this new translation of the Bible" (Goodrich 1912, 591). ,0J See ch. 7, fn. 8.

326

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 13

longer play a role in China. This meant that only translations in highest classical Chinese and in Mandarin were to be published. Goodrich could not possibly have known how insignificant the circulation of die Wenli Union Version was to be, but he nevertheless did know that only one edi­ tion of the Union Version would be the Chinese Bible of the future: die Mandarin edition. With this change of perspective, the demands on die style of translation now appeared in a different light to the Union Version translators. The Mandarin translation would no longer only be the transla­ tion of ttie common people, but also of the educated, thus necessitating a good style of language. And even more, the translators hoped diat their translation could serve as a model for standard Mandarin, a hope which only emphasized the need for a good style.104 In the preface of the 1907 edition of the New Testament, it was la­ mented that **smoothness of style has been more or less sacrificed" to make the translation “distinctly literal and faithful to the original."105 Not only for Mateer, who had seen this problem as one of the main stumbling blocks in the preparation of a version according to his principles, but also for the other translators, this was increasingly regarded as in need of change. Ac­ cordingly, Lewis explained the changes in the revision as such: It is a matter of congratulation that the ideal of the committee has changed since then [the publication of the NT], and that in the final re­ view of the NT during the last few months we have sought accuracy of meaning rather than literalness, and believe that the style has been greatly improved at the same time. We have sacrificed nothing, so far as we know, except superfluous words, and we confidently expect that mis­ sionaries and Chinese of good literary taste will be pleased with the re­ sult.106 The actual revision of the NT included a greater number of changes than had first been anticipated. In John 1, for instance, there are 52 changes from the 1907 to the 1919 edition, an amount which almost exactly corre­ sponds to one change for each of the 51 verses of that chapter.107

104 Lewis (1919, 4) wrote after the conq)letioQ of the Union Version: “May we not hope, also, that it will prove a decided contribution toward a standard Mandarin style, something which the Chinese language has never yet had?" (cf. Goodrich 1923, 28). 105 See ch. 11.4.4. 106 Lewis 1919, 3. 107 Bryson in his analysis (quoted in Murray 1919, 441) found the same number of changes per verse.

U n io n V e r s io n ：O l d T e s t a m e n t T r a n s l a t i o n

327

John 1:39 (“He said to them, 'Come, and you will see.’ They came therefore and saw where he was staying; and they stayed with him that day, for it was about the tenth hour”）demonstrates the differences between the 1907 and 1919 editions.108 The Union Version 1907 translated with : 耶 穌 對 他 們 說 ，你 們 來 看 。 他 們 就 去 看 他 在 那 里 住 ，這 一天 便 和 他 同 住 。 男 候 約 有 申 正 了 一“Jesus said to them: ‘Come see.’ And tfiey went

to see where he lived, and this day they lived with him; that time was around the tenth hour.” The 1919 edition ren d ered : 耶 稣 說 ，你們來 看 。他 們 就 去 看 他 在 那 里 住 ，這 一 天 便 與 他 同 住 ，

約有申正了 一

“Jesus said: ‘Come see.’ And they went to see where he lived, and this day they lived with him; that time was around the tenth hour." The object in the introduction to the direct speech (對 他 們 ）was not translated in the 1919 edition (like in the Peking Version) because it is implied in the con­ text, and thus was considered stylistically inferior (cf. verses 22 and 51). In two other instances in this verse, literary instead of colloquial terms were chosen: yu 與 instead of he 和 ，or shi 時 instead of shihou 時 候 . A more literary approach in terminology can also be traced elsewhere, as in the use of more classical particles,109 omitted particles110 and classifiers,111 or in the exchange of nouns for pronouns.112 The syntactical changes also aim at a better Chinese style rather than the absolute fidelity to the Greek syntax. In verse 31 (“but in order that He might be manifested to Israel, I came baptizing in water"), the 1907 ver­ sion rebuilt the Greek syntax w i t h 但 知 叫 他 顯 明 與 以 色 列 人 ，所 以 我 來 用 水 施 洗 一“but to manifest him to the Israelites, therefore I came to baptize with water,” whereas the 1919 edition turned the sentence around (like the Peking V e rs io n ^ ): 如 今 我 來 用 水 施 洗 ，爲 要 叫 他 顯 明 給 以 色 歹ij人 一 “now I came to baptize with water, to manifest him to the Israel­ ites." A similar proceeding can be observed in verse 35 (“again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples”)，where the 1907 version followed the Greek text w ith 再 次 日 ，約 “ 又 站 著 ，還 有 他 的 兩 個 門 徒 °* Cf. ch. 11.4.7. 09 Yinzhe 因茗 or yinwei 因爲 were changed to yin 因 （ w . 7, 15). 0 Guo 過 t to combine fidelity and colloquial Mandarin. Like other translations before, however, the version had no chance to gain any influence whatsoever because of its competitive position with the Union Version, which prevented it from ever possibly finding acceptance among the missionaries and the Chinese Church.

14. UNION VERSION: DEVELOPMENTS AFTER PUBLICATION

14.1 . Imme< lediate Reception diate reception of the Mandarin and the immedi Wenli Union Versions differed considerably. Ten years after the publication of the Union Version editions, in 1929, the BFBS agent G.W. Sheppard (1874-1956) wrote (400f.)： The success of the Mandarin Union Version has been most noteworthy. More than a million copies of the Mandarin New Testament have been sold ... and half a million complete Mandarin Bibles have been issued. •••

The circulation of the Wenli Bible is still very considerable in South East China and the Straits Settlements vvliere the dialects differ too widely from Mandarin to permit of the latter being easily understood. But even in these regions the vernacular versions are in great demand. Among readers of Wenli the Union Version has only slowly won favour as compared with the “Delegates’ Version.” Ten years later, the BFBS Report of 1939 (177) finally stated: Through the unforeseen changes which take place in a language of a moving nation the demand for the Wenli ... has steadily declined since the publication of the edited Union Version in 1922. In this year ... not a single copy of the Scriptures was printed in Wenli, probably for the first time since the establishment of the China Agencies of the Bible So­ cieties. After the Kuoyu national language”1】Union Version had displaced the Wenli in China it was still called for by overseas Chi­ nese, but recently the large orders for those fields have been almost en­ tirely for the national language Scriptures.

For guoyu see fh. 64.

332

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

The last edition of the Wenli Union Version was published in 1934,2 whereas the Mandarin Union Version is the standard Chinese version of the Bible up to the present day. As a most fortunate coincidence for the Mandarin edition, the publica­ tion year of 1919 was also the year of the “May Fourth Movement" (wusi yundong 五 四 運 動 )，the official beginning of a new literary qx>ch with the recognition and use of Mandarin, tfien called baihua^ for modern Chinese literature.4 With this, classical Chinese was viewed by many, especially by a new generation of young authors, as archaic and no longer fit for modem times. As alluded to in the above quotation from Sheppard, die only parts of China where th e new Mandarin Bible was initially not accepted by a ma­ jority of the people were the southern provinces Guangdong and Fujian. Both areas have distinctly different dialects from Mandarin,3 and both were main areas for the translation of numerous dialectal versions of the Bible.6

The Delegates' Version, on the other hand, was republished as late as 1982. For baihua see ch. 1, fn. 5. An article by Hu Shi 胡 適 （ 1891-1962〉 ，A Preliminary Discussion o f Literary Re­ form (文亨改良辟X ), published in 1917, marked the actual beginning of the era of the new Chinese literary movement. It is noteworthy that in this article, Hu (p. 23) pointed out the essential importance of Bible translations in Europe for the develop­ ment of modem literature: **Luther marked the beginning of Protestantism with the translation of the Old Testament and New Testament into German, which was the first of German literature. The same happened in countries like England and France" (author’s translation). In 1934, Hu stated his doubts about the influence of the Union Version on modem Chinese language and literature: “As far as I know, the Mandarin version of the Bible played no part in preparing the way for the mod­ ern use of the Pei-hwa [baihua] as a literary medium. In all the controversial litera­ ture of the early years of the New Literature Movement, no menlion was made of these translations. The Pei-hwa that was advocated as the new literary medium was that of the great novels, which was the same source from which the translators of the Bible obtained the medium for their Mandarin version" (quoted in Broomhall 1934, 5f.) Wen/Ma wrote in 1914 (p. 110) that in places like Xiamen and Guangdong, the Mandarin versions simply could not be used because they were not understood. Dole2elov4-Velingerovi (1977, 22) estimates that around the turn of the century, approximately 70% could understand Mandarin. Pearce (1912, 291) gave four different vernacular groups which were considered in Chinese Bible translation: Mandarin, dialects from Guangdong (including Canton­ ese, Hakka, Swatou, and Hainanese), dialects from Fujian, and dialects from the Jiangzhe area (Jiangsu and Zhejiang, including Wenzhou, Taizhou, Ningbo, Shang­ hai and Suzhou).

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

333

In addition, classical Chinese has enjoyed a higher reputation up to the present day in South China, thus making it especially difficult for Chris­ tians from the south to accept a Bible not written in the elevated language of a canonical book.7 Even in these areas, however, the Mandarin Union Version had replaced other translations after a decade of circulation,8 a fact that must be attributed mainly to the development of baihua literature, which by that time had attained nationwide acceptance as the new form of Chinese literature. The Mandarin Union Version was recognized by many as a model for Mandarin Chinese; in fact, the Gospels were apparently even used in some governmental schools as a model for standard baihua.9 Zhou Zuoren (1885-1967), one of the authorities of the new literature movement, wrote an often-quoted essay10 predicting the influence of the Mandarin Union Version on modem Chinese language: We can see from the European Bible translations that they all stood in relation to the development of arts in their respective countries, like Wyclifs [sic】translation in England or Luther’s in Germany. China has the same hope today. The European Bible translations helped to accom­ plish the unification and development of the national languages of their respective countries. This was unintentional, because it [Bible translation】was religiously motivated. The time, place, and position of the Bi­ ble in China is very different than in Europe, and the result will there­ fore also be different; nevertheless, the reform of the Chinese language and literature can gain much help and profit from it. ... Fourteen or fifteen years ago, in the time of the wback-to-the-ancient ideology," I was not very pleased with the classical translation of the New Testament. I considered retranslating the Gospels, not only to cor­ rect the mistakes of the Authorized Version but also to shape it into the style of great classical elegance comparable to the Buddhist canonical books, for only that would have been suitable. This eventually did not happen. ... Four or five years ago I still planned to retranslate Jesus's parables according to the example of the Baiyu jing .1、But now I think

7

See Xu 1983, 142.

« 9

See Wang-Wu 1981, 48; Xu 1983, 142. See Hudspeth 1952, 14; Covell 1964, 133; Chen1979, 21; Zhou 1984, 93;Zhao 1993, 46.

10 Cf. Zhang (1996, 253ff.), who criticizes the contentsof Zhou's article as well as the uncritical employment of it. "

The Baiyu jing 百喻經一Cfawi’c o f the One Hundred Parables—is a compilation of parables of the life of Buddha (Avadina), which was translated into Chinese in the

334

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

that the Mandarin [Union Version] translatira is really quite good, and even has great literary value. Although the requirements of a good model are uncertain, it nevertheless can be said that this is Mandarin of rarely seen quality. This translation, though made with religious goals, and hardly any literary consideration, has saved, because of its most diligent translation technique, the flavor of the original in many places, thus increasing its value as translated literature. ... I am reminded of someone who opposed the new literature, maintaining that these literary productions were not new because they all came firom “The Gospel According to Matthew". At the time I felt that his state­ ment was ridiculous, but when I recall it now I am prepared to admire his insight. “The Gospel According to Matthew” bears indeed the earli­ est Mandarin in [translated] European literature, and I predict that it will have a very great and very deep relation to the future of new Chinese literature.12 (Author’s translation.) Judging solely from the use of biblical motives of many of the great writers of the post-1919 era gives an idea of the impact of tiie Bible, which by that time was almost exclusively die Mandarin Union Version)3 Though the employment of biblical motives or interest in the Bible must be seen in the context of a general interest for Western culture radier than only in the literary merits of the Union Version, it nevertheless shows tfiat it was widely read even in non-Christian circles.14 In Christian circles, the Union Version has stirred up controversy from immediately after its publication until today. Interestingly, this discussion reached its most heated point about 60 years after publication. This was the time of the publication of two important new translations— 、 s Chinese

fifth century. Zhou Zuoren's famous brother Lu Xun 隹 迅 （ 1881-1936) published a new edition of the Baiyu jing in 1914. Zhou 1921, 6f. This is a reprint of a lecture that Zhou gave at Peking University in 1920. In works of leading writers like Lu Xun, Mao Dun 茅 盾 （ 1896-1981), Guo Moruo 郭沫若（ 1892-1978), Yu Dafii 郁達夫（ 1896-1945)，Bing Xin 冰 心 （ b. 1900), Wen Yiduo 聞 一 多 （ 1899-1946), Xu Zhimo 徐 志 摩 (1897-1931). or Ba Jin 巴 金 （ b. 1904) biblical motives can be found. For a more thorough discussion on this, see Zhu 1941, 70f.; Robinson 1986; Liang 1992. 216ff.; 1993, 93ff.; G41ik 1993; Wang 1994 In a recent study, Wickeri (1995, 148) remarks: “The Bible may have briefly been recognized as a model for translation during the early part of the May Fourth movement and, as noted earlier, had some impact as a model for baihua prose, but its influence and recognition seem to have been gradually subsumed and lost, if not consciously rejected, as the new literature became mass literature."

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

335

Version (published 1980) and Shengjing xinyiben (published 1976/1992)— both of which had to be justified in comparison to the Union Version. But it also coincided with the completion of a full traditional Chinese cycle of 60 years, a fact which was referred to by several authors.15 For the first review of the complete Bible in 1919,16 the opinions of sev­ eral missionaries in China were collected. The version was praised for its colloquial Mandarin and its greater faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew in comparison to the Peking Version. The revisional changes to the alreadypublished parts (i.e., the New Testament, the Psalms, and the Pentateuch) were noted as great improvements, though sometimes not sufficient in the abolition of non-Chinese syntax, and in other cases going too far and losing the meaning of the original text. The review was concluded by some re­ marks of Harold B. Rattenbury (1878-1961) of the Wesleyan Methodist Missionary Society in Wuchang (today part of Wuhan/Hubei): On the whole my feeling is that this is the last and the greatest transla­ tion of the Scriptures where the burden of the work ultimately rests on foreigners, but that the final Chinese version will be very different, es­ pecially in the New Testament. It wants emphasizing over and over again that the Chinese version can never come until Chinese translators arise (1) with a genius and a love for Mandarin; (2) with a first class knowledge, not a mere smattering, of Greek and also of Hebrew; (3) with skill and practice in translation, such as some of the Commercial Press writers possess; (4) with an entire devotion to truth and the Truth. ... The final Chinese version will never come until we have Chinese scholars, deeply versed in the original tongues, masters also of Manda­ rin, translating into their own native tongue. It is for the Church to pre­ pare her Hebrew and Greek scholars.17 (italics by Rattenbury) The missionaries of the early 20th century had learned from past experi­ ences that the Union Version could not be the ultimate wauthorized version” in Chinese. It was understood diat the translation had the limitations of every translation which was mainly made by foreigners, even if they had spent most of their lives in China. Also, the ideal of one authorized Bible translation in every language had dramatically changed at the turn of the century. The English-speaking world had recently seen the publication of See Pu 1981, 80; Rong 1981, 88; Zhou 1981, 17; Liang 1992, 223. See Murray 1919. Earlier reviews of the Union Version were published after the publication of Acts in 1899 (see Kogg 1899) and after the publication of the NT (see Sydenstricker 1908; Madeley 1908). In the articles the translators of the Union Ver­ sion were moderately praised, but all added points of criticism, too. Quoted in Murray 1919, 442f.

336

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

several new translations,18 each of which had found its niche and in the process robbed the Authorized Version of its sole position of almost three centuries. Possibly none of the missionaries of that time would have expected the Union Version to eventually become the primary Bible of the Chinese Church for at least the rest of die century. 14.2. Continued Translation Efforts o f Chinese Union Version Translators The sentiments of Rattenbury and other foreign missionaries in regard to new translations done by Chinese were taken i^) by Chinese immediately. As early as 1922, at the National Christian Conference, the first conference of Chinese church leaders where Chinese participants outnumbered West­ ern participants, the need for a strictly Chinese translation of the Bible was expressed.19 This demand gained strength with the increasing call for an indigenous Chinese church ( 本色教會 ).M Since then, many attempts have been made on the Chinese side to re­ translate the Bible, but only two of these efforts were direct responses to the Union Version by translators who were also part of the Union Version translation committee: the NT translations by Wang Yuande 王 元 德 ，the assistant of Mateer, and Zhu Baohui 朱 寶 惠 ，Sydenstricker’s assistant. 14.2.1. Wang Yuande After Mateer’s death in 1908, Wang became professor at Jilu University, Mateer’s former Dengzhou College21 where Wang had also been a student. In the preface to his translation, Wang described the shortcomings of the Union Version, especially in stylistic matters, which were due to necessary compromises within the translation committee. During the time of the Un­ ion Version translation and his work as Mateer’s assistant, he had already “secretly kept in mind to newly translate the Bible.” However, he had felt inadequate to do that because of his lack of scholarship in biblical matters. 18 Besides the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version, colloquial versions like tbe translations by Weymouth (published 1902) and Moffatt (published 1901/1913), or The Twentieth Century New Testament (published 1904) had been published. 19 See Hills 1966, 67. 20 This was especially pursued under the leadership of Cheng Jingyi (see ch. 11.4.4).

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

337

He eventually enrolled in seminary and started to translate the New Testa­ ment in 1931. For three years afterwards, the translation occupied him so much that he could uneither eat nor sleep" (忘餐廢眠 > .He repeatedly went over every verse, and read each of them aloud to himself anywhere from 50 to more dian a hundred times to see how fluent they sounded.22 The translation was published in 1933 by the Qingdao section of the Church of Christ in China ( 中華基督教會 ) . It was never distributed widely but was, according to Cheng (1947, 24), of great value to Chinese Bible researchers. Wang described his translation princq>le as diat of a fluent translation which at the same time is faithful to the original. He enq>loyed modern punctuation23 and specific pronouns for supernatural beings.24 The basis versions, according to his preface, did not include die Greek text but the American Standard Version, a 1916 Latin edition, and several Chinese translations: the 1907 and 1919 editions of the Mandarin Union Version NT, the Wenli Union Version NT, Morrison/Milne's translation, and the 1922 Catholic NT edition of Xiao Jingshan 蕭 靜 山 （ 1855-1924).25 The translations by Morrison/Milne and Xiao show no similarity in comparison to the version by Wang whatsoever, and it seems quite likely that these versions—the very first Protestant edition and at that time the only conpletely published Catholic NT translation—are mainly listed for reasons of authorization. The Mandarin Union Version, on the other hand, was—as could be expected from Wang’s former involvement in diis trans­ lation project—the main source for his edition. Of the altogether 48 altera­ tions in the first chapter of John firom the text of the Mandarin Union Ver­ sion edition of 1919, almost half (21) are from the 1907 edition. Mateer and Wang only took part in the 1907 edition, and it is thus not surprising 22 See preface in Wang’s translation. 23 Including questions marks and exclamation marks. 24 For God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, angels, etc., Wang used the -spiritual" pronoun ta 祂. For evil spirits he used the neuter pronoun ta 牠. Later Bible translators (The Bible Treasury New Testament (published 1939), early editions of LQ (published 1946) the Catholic NT version of and under Litvanyi (published 1948fF.), or the 1976 edition of Shengjing xinyiben) adapted the use of /a 牠. but limited it (b the three persons of the Trinity. The use of the “spiritual” or “godly” radical ( ^ ) in the newly developed pronoun ta 袍 presented a singular linguistic phenomenon in the realm of Christian language: “God” was no longer defined with masculine ("he": ta 他)，feminine (“she”：ta 她）or neuter (“it”：ta 牠）gender, but with a Hspiritual" gender instead (see Zetzsche 1993, 54). 25 See below.

338

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

that Wang relied on that edition. Nevertheless, there are also 50 alterations from the 1907 edition in Wang’s translation (witfi 21 taken from the 1919 edition), so that it can be safely stated that bodi editions served as com­ paratively equal basis versions. In the tfieologically roost inqx)itant part of the first chapter of John—the Prologue (John 1:1-18)—12 alterations from both of the Union Version editions represent a significantly lower number than in the remaining part of that chapter. None of these alterations is of a significant nature. It seems likely that Wang eidier felt too apprehensive with his relatively weak theo­ logical background to alter a greater number of passages in the Prologue, or he chose not to change it to avoid frustrating readers of this familiar passage. The changes in the remaining verses display a greater fidelity (especially in comparison to the 1919 edition) in regard to the use of pronouns (see verses 19, 24, 41) and to the use of an object in the introduction of direct speech (see verses 22, 38, 50). In verses 32 and 33a of Wang’s edition, “Spirit” is—like in die American Standard Version—only translated ling 通 一 “Spirit”一instead of shengling 聖整 一 “Holy Spirit”一of the Union Version editions. An attempt to translate into stylistically better Chinese can be seen in verse 27 (“It is He who comes after me, die thong of a sandal I am not worthy to u n t i e - ) : 祂 雖 然 在 我 以 後 來 ，我 就 是 給 他 解 鞋 帶 ，也是不配 的 一 “Even though He came after me, t even worthy to untie his shoestrings." The more literal transla Union Version editions ( 1 9 0 7 : 就 是 在 以 後 來 那 一 位 ，我 給 他 解 鞋 帶 ，也 是 不 配 的 一 “This is the person wlio came after me, I am not even worthy to untie his shoe strings;" 1 9 1 9 : 就 是 那 在 我 以 後 來 的 ，我 給 他 解 鞋 帶 ，也 不 配 一 “This is the one came after me, I am not even worthy to untie his shoeis replaced with a rendering ， tically smoother tfius stylistically better. The very jh , also displays how immature the use of die uspiritual" pronoun ta 卞也26 still was: it is only used in the first instance but mistakenly not in the second, where the mas­ culine pronoun ta 他 seems to point to a different person, thus rendering the whole phrase illogical. Wang translated the imperative verb i5e—**look"—in verses 29 and 36 with qing kan 請看 一“(please) look"—stylistically more refined than in the 1907 edition with nimen kan 你們看 一 “(you) look”一or the 1919 edi­ tion with karma 看哪 一 “look!”一but without the emphasis which the text 26 Seefh. 24.

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

339

requires. In verse 47, the same term is then rendered by Wang with die colloquial exclamation particle ai 哎 ，which forms a strong contrast to the former polite renderings. Considering the closeness of Wang's translation to both editions of the Mandarin Union Version, it may be understood more as a revision than a new translation. The historical relevance of this version lies doubtlessly in tfie fact that it was the first complete Protestant NT version done by a Chinese, rather tfian its great impact on the church or later Bible translations. 14.2.2. Zhu Baohui After the publication of Sydenstricker's and Zhu’s NT in 1929,27 they im­ mediately started another revision which was interrupted by die death of Sydenstricker in 1930. After a short consideration, Zhu decided to continue this task himself: The publication of the jointly translated NT was only a first step. After the publication it was widely praised and recognized as desperately needed by the Church. But the hurried publication had resulted in a fair amount of imperfections, which deeply troubled me. Therefore I wanted to retranslate it, hoping that it would then be more precise and perfect . . . .M(Author's translation.) Zhu studied Greek at Nanking Seminary under the Southern Presbyterian missionary John Leighton Stuart (1867-1962)29 and became a teacher of Greek at the correspondence school of the seminary.30 The in^x>rtance he put in translating the Greek text rather than the text of other translations can be estimated by the voluminous appendix to his translation, which in­ cluded a short Greek grammar, a concordance widi explanations based on the Greek terms, and a list of translated names in the New 丁 int. Zhu spent six years on the translation, a task accompli addition to his teaching duties at Nanking Seminary. When the NT was published in 1936—for this reason known in China under the name — 九 三 六 本 （“ 1936

27 See above. M Preface of Zhu’s translation. 29 Stuart taught Greek and New Testament in Nanking from 1908-191、 30 See Cheng 1947, 23. Sydenstricker was the dean of the Correspondence School until this date.

340

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

Edition")31—it was financially siqiported by Sydenstricker’s daughter, Pearl S. Buck.32 Critics praised its fidelity to the original, but criticized the style as not as “lively and vigorous" as that of the Union Version?3 Still, the high evaluation of this translation is demonstrated by its republication in Hong Kong in 1993. The principles of Zhu’s translation are described in its preface: it was to be a faithful translation into modern Chinese, with modem punctuation, gender-specific pronouns, and some newly introduced terms.34 The greater reliance on the Greek text was to result in an increased number of trans­ lated Greek particles, a clearer distinction between verbs and nouns,33 and greater consideration of emphasis in the Greek text. Furthermore, some phrases which were considered by him to be wrongly translated in die Un­ ion Version were to be corrected.36 According to the preface, the basis versions for the translation included an 1875 edition of a polyglot Bible,37 several editions of the NT Greek text,38 and the Chinese translation by

31 See Zhu 1981.74. n See preface to Zhu’s

translation.

M See Zhu 1941, 73. M The translation of napdKXqtoq in the Gospel and Epistles of Jdin is especially pointed out. The Union Version translation baohmshi 保 患 師 —literally: "master of ensured kindness"—was, according to the preface, of stylistic quality though not a good translation, unlike baohuren 保護人 一“protector”一the term that Zhu em­ ployed. Baohuren as a term for 7capdKXr]Toposite: he did not primarily try to render the text into smooth Chinese—as one might have expected of one of the first translations done by a Chinese—but he strove for great fidelity to the Greek. One may recall Sydenstricker’s critique of die passive participation of Chinese assistants in the translation process, especially of the Union Version.44 Yet here seems to be just such a case, >^1iere a Chinese translator held his ideas of translation back as long as he worked with his Western colleague, only to reveal them when he continued the translation by him­ 42 The Greek text for the English Revised Version only has it in the margin, Westcott/ Hort (1881) and later editions in the body text. Most modem Bible translators retain the traditional reading. 43 See ch. 13.2.5. 44 Seech. 11.4.3.1.

U n io n V e r s io n : D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

343

self. On the other hand, the great differences may also be explained by the fact that Zhu had different motives for the translation. The missionary Sy­ denstricker translated the NT for the sake of his mission, the Greek teacher Zhu possibly translated mainly for his Greek students as study material. The voluminous appendix in this edition would point to this hypothesis as well. 14.3. Continued Reception o f the Union Version The fact that the Union Version was made by foreigners rather than Chi­ nese was by no means the only criticism uttered by Chinese critics. Besides the early complaint about the Union Version’s lack of faithful­ ness to the original, especially in con^arison to the earlier editions of the Union Version,*5 one of the sharpest critics, Gu Dunrou 顧敦辣 of Donghai University in Taizhong,46 brought forth a number of criticisms. While working on a concordance for the Union Version (published 1961), Gu tabulated 56 shortcomings of the translation in three categories:47 (1) errors in the choice of words; (2) grammatical and stylistic problems; and (3) mistakes in translation. In the last category only a few instances were listed, as in cases where the original meaning of a phrase which was too difficult to translate had been changed, simplified, wrongly understood, or not clearly analyzed. The first category included terms which had changed meanings48 or become obsolete in modem Chinese,49 terms which were too

45 See Wang (published 1936-1939). 46 Gu himself was also active as a Bible translator. He was named to be on a revision committee of the Union Version (see p. 348), translated Philemon and the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:1-12) with Frank Price in 1958 (published in The Bible Translator 1960, 103), and Psalm 90 and parts of Psalm 19 in 1964 with Carl J. Schroeder (see Gu 1964, 133f.). 47 See K u 【 = Gu] 1957, 160-165; Gu 1964, 110-134. The later (Chinese) article is a revised and enlarged version of the former (English) article. 44 For example, yichuan 逍傅 for “ tradition” (Mark 7:3) has changed its meaning to "heredity" as used in the natural sciences—today's term for “ tradition” would be chuantong 傅 統 （Bailer (1907, 100) bad commented on the use of yichuan with the words: -considering the drastic changes that are coming over China, it is not at all improbable that in a few years an entirely new terminology w ill in many depart­ ments supersede the old” )；or jiaotong 交— for “ fellowship” (Phil. 2:1) is used to­ day for “ traffic” 一today’s term for **fellowship" could be tuanqie 刚契 . 49 Gu quoted xiaoyu 曉論 一“ notify” (Gen. 9:8)—as a term that is not in modern use anymore (for more examples, cf. Zhu 1981, 68). Wu (1993, 89) gave some exam­ ples for characters which are not even to be found in roost dictionaries, such as dun

344

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

colloquial90 or dialectal,51 transliterations which could cause misunder­ standings52 or were of a length of seven syllables or more, and wrongly written characters.33 In the second category—grammatical and stylistic problems—Gu counted the inharmonious mixture of classical Chinese and Mandarin, mistakes of obsessive faithfulness to the original, or unclear or stylistically uncouth p rases. Another early, though more moderate, critic was Liu Yiling 劉 興 凌 ， who himself translated the Gospel of John in 1964.54 He praised the Union Version as “the most beautiful canonical book in Mandarin” and described its position in China as comparable to the Authorized Version in the Eng­ lish-speaking world. Nevertheless, he pointed out that die Chinese language had changed immensely since the ie publication of the Union Version, making a revision necessary, particular!rly in the fields of terminology, grammar, and punctuation. Liu’s main cor )ncem for a revision was that it had to be strictly limited.53 Liu later became one of the most ardent defenders of the Union Version when it was criticized in a series of articles by the translators of Shengjing xinyiben (NT published 1976).56 Besides the low opinion that Liu had for

不 in dunzi 木 不 子 一“ block of wood” (Isa. 44:19)— or zan 堪 一“ open” (Deut. 15:7 (8)). so

Da nurfmg 大麻窺 for “ leprosy” (Matt. 8:2) is pointed out as being loo colloquial. Today mafengbing 麻親病 is used instead. Yemzhong 驗 屮 一“ approved” (1 Tbess. 2:4)—is poimed out as originating from Shandong, the home province of Mateer (see Gu 1964, 27). Other terms described as only being used in northern colloquial include guinO 閱 女 一“ girl* (Mark 5:41), gou 播 一“ reach” (2 Cor. 10:13), or namen 納 悶 —-perplexed" (Acts 2:6) (see Yu Zhongmin 1979, 143; New Chinese Bible Centre 1977, 20, 38).

52

Among others, nigedimu 尼哥底母 for MNicodemus" in John 3 is an often-quoted example for such 丨translation. The translated meaning of this transliteration could be 14the mother of the older brother of N i.” 77 題 一“ topic” 一is used throughout for ti 提 一“ raise" (1 Tim. 4,6 et al.)-

M He was asked by Moody Press to undertake this translation (see Liu 1979a, 3); un­ fortunately, no record of this translation exists in the archives of this publishing bouse (see letter from Moody Press to author of March 29, 1995). See Liu 1954, 40; cf. 14.3.4.1. S6

The translation committee published the New Chinese Bible Commission (later: Centre) Bulletin 屮文聖經祈譯委吕會通訊 1 (1972) - 11 (1987) (plus one special edition 1987) where a great number of articles appeared which compared the new translation with the Union Version, as well as a list of compared passages of the New Testament in the new translation and the Union Version (屮文聖經新舊譯

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

345

Shengjing xinyiben as a translation itself, he mostly condemned the way the Union Version had been described by the translators of the new version. To the churches, to the average Christian, and to Bible classes, the influence of such public criticism would be devastating,57 he claimed, because criticism of the Union Version was criticism of the Chinese Bible.58 This attitude appears to be very typical for Bible translation in China after the publication of the Union Version. The Union Version was viewed by a great majority in the Chinese church as the authorized version which could not be changed, lest the Bible itself, the “Word of God," be changed.59 Even the last, possibly most objective, point of criticism of the Union Version—the advancement of biblical textual studies since 191960—was hardly regarded as important enough to justify a revision of the Union Ver­ sion by the conservative majority of the Chinese Church. 14.3.1. First Attempts of Revision The earliest revision of the Union Version was attempted in the early 1920s by a group around Liu Tingfang 劉 廷 芳 （1892-1947)，dean of the Theo­ logical School of Yanjing University, and J. L. Stuart, president of Yanjing University.61 This attempt did not bring forth any results, however. Zhou Zuoren also expressed strong interest in a further revision of the Union Version. He was asked to do a revision of the punctuation,62 but found it impossible to avoid other changes as well as he went through die book of Isaiah. This resulted in the formation of a preservation committee in 1926, consisting of the two surviving members of the Union Version translation committee, Lewis and Allan, as well as Stuart, Cheng Jingyi, Wei Zhuomin 韋 卓 民 （1888-1976), Li Rongfang 李 榮 芳 ， and T.N.

木參讀選輯 ）in 1977. Individual translators also published articles in which the Union Version was criticized (Rong 1975; 1976; Ye [pseudonym] 1977/1978 et al.)>

57 See Liu 1978, 86. 58 See Liu 1979b, 96. 59 See Spillett 1975, XVIII; Luo 1983, preface in Xu 1983, IV. 60 Especially through the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1940s and1950s as well as of NT manuscripts, especially the Chester Beatty Papyri in the 1930s andthe Bodmer Papyri in the 1950s and 60s (see Comfort 1992a, 180). 61 See Kramers 1956, 157, fh. 4; Hills 1966, 67. For Stuart cf. above. 62 Interestingly, in his article of 1921 (p. 7), Zhou especially praised the punctuation of the Union Version.

346

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

Wong.63 However, Zhou's efforts were never published, nor did the pres­ ervation committee ever gain any significance. Eventually, the only change made to the Union Version in the first half of the century was the change of its Chinese name in 1939.64 14.3.2. Concrete Action on a Revisloa In 1958, the BFBS and the ABS65 agreed on the need to revise the Union Version.66 This decision was en^hasized by visits of Eugene A. Nida, ex-

i l

l g

” l ." 2 廳 l iol

1e= ru

63 See Hills 1966, 52, 57. T.N. Wong of the Chinese Anglican Church also took part in a NT revision of the Cantonese Bible (published 1926). Li Rongfang was consid­ ered to be an expert in Hebrew—Zhu (1941, 74) calls him the "Chinese authority in Hebrew." He started to work on a translation of the OT, but because of World War II and problems with his health (see Zhu 1991, 19) never came beyond the transla­ tion of Lamentations, which he translated into the style of the Lisao 離 騷 (see Zhu 1941, 74, 76). The Lisao, supposedly written by Qu Yuan 屈 原 （ ca. 343-290 BC), is a part of the Chuci 楚辭 ，an early compilation of songs from the south of China. The Lisao's particular style is made up of mostly six characters per line with every line forming a rhyme. The end of those lines that do not f( are with the emphatic interjection xi 兮 . This style is called Sat ) or lation style, the latter term illustrating why it lent itself to the 「the biblical book of Lamentations (cf. ch. 10, fn. 82). 所

So

c

-it

w

s

he

-

y M// 个

l e c

f e

g

t ta —

o

tl .1

B l

e

t i

II

l

Th

M N3

-

Jit

M

III

64 In 1939, the Chinese name of the Union Version was changed from Guanhua I n un Q—-t ni o n n e w c o r

Old and Ne lament” 一was changed to Shengjing 聖經 一“ Holy Book (= Bi­ ble)**—in 1962. This edition underwent some editorial changes with a new setting of paragraphs, the addition of section headings, the separation of the text into two col­ umns on every page, the addition of some drawings (see BFBS Report 1963, 141; Gao 1994), and a very limited number of revisional changes (e.g., the transliteration yabiya 亞 比 亞 （ “ Abijah•” Matt. 1:7) was changed to yabiya 亞比雅 ，thus eliminat­ ing the possible connotation of “ Asia against Asia” ). The new Union Version edition of 1962 was “ enthusiastically received and deeply appreciated** (Rhodes 1970，i l , 121). 65 Since the 1930s，the involvement of the Western Bible societies had been largely channeled through Chinese Bible societies. In 1927, the South China Bible Society was founded as the first Chinese Bible society. Ten years later, in 1937, the BFBS’s and the ABS’s Chinese agencies merged in the China Bible House 屮闽聖經咨房 (the NBSS only considered joining after 1941 [see Henderson/McGavin 1969, 31], which it officially did in 1946). After the communist revolution, the China Bible House severed all contacts with Western Bible societies in 1951，and il continued its independent work until 1959, when it was closed by the Chinese authorities (see Cann 1989, 7f.). The involvement of the Western Bible societies was from then on concentrated in Hong Kong (the Hong Kong Bible House ( 香港咨房 〉• later Hong

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

347

ecutive secretary for translation of the ABS and translation research coordinator of the United Bible Societies (UBS67), to Hong Kong and Taiwan. Beginning in 1962, Nida met with Chinese church leaders and found only little opposition to a plan of revision.68 Nevertheless, a dual approach was considered, including a moderate revision, to be followed by a later more general revision.69 The consensus was that the revision would have to take place outside of mainland China, as within China there would be neither public interest for such a project nor cooperation with churches outside of China.70 In further considerations, the translation by Lii Zhenzhong 呂 振 中 （ d. 1995) (1st ed. of NT published 1946), which was partially supported by the Bible societies (but not published under their responsibility71), played an important role. At meetings in 1962 and 1963, the possibility of a new translation on the basis of U i’s translation was discussed but eventually dismissed.72 In January 1965, after having had preliminary talks with Lai Kong Bible Society (香港聖經公會)，was founded in 1949). A Taiwan office (香港 聖經公會台_ 辦* 處）was founded in 1956, and was renamed Taiwan Bible Soci­ ety (台湾聖經公會）in 1960 (since 1970 Bible Society in the Republic of China (屮 華民闽聖經公會))；only in 1965 under the supervision of the ABS did it become independent from the Hong Kong society (see Zhao 1986, 3f.). 66 See Rhodes 1970, 8. 67 The UBS was founded in 1946 as a world-wide association of national Bible socie68 The only churches strongly opposed to a revision were found in the Philippines. Nida remarked: “It was interesting to note that the further a church was away from actual use of Kuoyfl【 及 as a living tongue the more content the people appar­ ently are with the present text” (Report on Chinese Consultations of May 15, 1962, quoted in Rhodes 1970, 116). 69 See Report on Chinese Consultations of May 15, 1962, quoted in Rhodes 1970, 116. Once again there was a plan for a Union Version in two different editions, the plan that had failed in its first attempt. 70 In a letter to BFBS of March 20, 1959, Nida wrote about the Union Version revi­ sion: we will proceed with plans for a revision aimed primarily at the Diaspora, but with the view to its being of whatever use churches on the mainland wish to (published 1970) was according to its imprint **published for the Rev. Lu Chen-chung by Hong Kong Bible Society." 72 See Rhodes 1970, 120ff. R.P. Kramers of the Netherlands Bible Society, who, until he left Hong Kong in 1964, was also involved in the project as a selector and advi­ sor of the translators, had been closely connected with Lii and his translation work. He therefore urged that LQ’s version should be considered in the revision plan (see Report on Chinese Consultations of May 15, 1962, quoted in Rhodes 1970, 120f.;

348

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

Bingjiong 賴炳炯 of the Taiwan Bible Society, Nida met with Zbou Lianhua 周 聯 華 ，professor at Baptist Theological Seminary; the Union Version critic Gu Dunrou;73 and Song Quanxian 宋 泉 咸 ， president of Tainan Theological Seminary. A ulimited revision" of the Union Version was de­ cided upon, to be executed ttwith princq>al emphasis on stylistic modifica­ tion." The translation committee was to include the Taiwanese Zhou, Gu, and Song, and a fourth Chinese member, preferrably not from Taiwan. At a meeting in the fall of 1965, basic principles and procedures were to be developed on the basis of a number of selected passages from the Old and New Testaments. The work was scheduled to take five to six years, widi summer sessions of two months each and the translation of basic drafts between the meetings—a plan wiiich was very similar to the original scheme of the Union Version translation. Two further committees, a review and a consultative committee of 10 and 25 to 30 members respectively, were to be elected. The apprehension surrounding the whole revision proj­ ect, even though it was only to be of a limited character, can be seen firom the recommendation of a “minimum of initial publicity" for the whole plan, as, “in general, it is unwise to give a lot of publicity about a revision for people’s fears are often unduly aroused."74 The meeting took place from August 30 through September 10, 1965, and it was decided that the committee [would attempt] to confine itself to a light revision on the basis of the Greek and Hebrew texts. It was felt that traditional theologi­ cal terms should be retained as far as possible, also proper names, ex­ cept in the case of a few which occur in secular literature and which need to be modernized.75 14.3.3. Reasons for Failure of Revision Plan The failure of the revision to finally take place as planned had at least two reasons. The first was that in September 1966, the ABS published The New Testament in Today's English Version (the con^>lete Bible was published in 1976 with the title Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Ver­ sion). This translation was done according to the translation theory of for Kramer s's engagement with LU’s translation see The Bible Translator 11/1960, 102ff.; Kramers 1954; 1956). 73 See above. 74 Chinese Consultation Report, January 1965, quoted in Rhodes 1970, 125fT. 75 Quoted in Report on Visit to Far East by Price (ms.).

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

349

Nida’s Toward a Science o f Translating (1964), in which Nida puts fortfi the theory of “dynamic equivalence” (later termed wfunctional equiva­ lence") in opposition to “formal equivalence.” A translation of “formal equivalence" is only related in its form and contents to the source language or text, which it attempts to transfer into the receptor language. The translation of “dynamic equivalence,” on the other hand, emphasizes the message that is to be communicated and made understandable to the speaker of the receptor language. In this theory, Nida tries to bridge the cultural gap—in the case of Chinese Bible translation— between the Israel of Old and New Testament times and Chinese speakers of the modem world. He also calls for different translations for different usocio-economic dialects,” with an average of three different groins of people for each society,76 and a continual process of retranslating to keep pace with the change of language.77 According to diis theory, The Bible in Today’s English Version is a new translation which seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and style found in the historic English Bible versions. Rather it attempts in this century to set forth the Biblical content and message in a standard, everyday, natural form of English.78 This translation was heavily promoted by several Bible societies and was considered a great success.79 Similar projects were started in other lan­ guages as well. The second related reason can be found in the attempts of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches, represented by the UBS, to promote ecumenical translations of the Bible. In 1965, the English Protes­ tant Revised Standard Version (published 1952) was the first English ver­ sion which also received the Catholic imprimatur. Since 1963, the UBS and the Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity had worked on common guidelines for ecumenical translations, which were formulated in the Guiding Principles fo r Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the

16 See Nida 1966,61. 77 Nida (1966, 60) estimates that “no Scripture is regarded as fully effective for more than fifty years." 78 Foreword to Today’s English Version 1976. 79 In the first five years after its publication, 30,000,000 copies of the Today's English Version were distributed (see Nida 1973, 55f.).

350

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

Bible (1968).80 In June of 1969, a Committee for the Preparation of a Uni­ fied Translation of the Chinese Bible ( 漢 文 聖 經 統 一譯本簿備委員會 ）was inaugurated by Lai Bingjiong and met for three days.81 Nida came to its second meeting in January 1970 to report on the great efforts diat the UBS were investing in ecumenical translation and the hopes they had in a Chi­ nese translation. In July of the same year, the UBS Northeast Asia Trans­ lators Seminar, under the leadership of Nida, took place in Taizhong. Of the 56 participants from several Asian countries, approximately two ttiirds were Protestant and one third Catholic.82 A little more than a year later, in October 1971, die translation of a new Chinese version was started in the rooms of the ABS in New York, with Catholic participation on the review committee.83 An ecumenical version could not have possibly been made on the basis of the Chinese Protestant Union Version，but rather according to the principles of the Today's Eng­ lish Version，which had been sanctioned by the Catfiolic church as well. The new translation was named Today's Chinese Version—Xiandai zhongwen yiben 現 代 中 文 譯 本 . After its publication (NT in 1975, AT in 1980), the Today's Chinese Version was promoted by many as the new Chinese Bible and the successor of the Union Version.M 14.3.4. Final Union Version Revision Attempts Nevertheless, the Today's Chinese Version could not replace die Union Version in its strong position in die Chinese church, and therefore consid­ erations for a revision of the Union Version were once again taken up. In May 1983, conferences in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore were held by the respective Bible societies and church leaders to discuss the necessity of a Union Version revision. The consensus of these discussions was that a revision was desired which would maintain the style of the Union Version and be as minor as possible.85 The old edition of the Union Version was

ao In 1987, the Guidelines fo r Interconfessional Cooperation in Translating the Bible were published, a revised edition of the 1968 guidelines. See Fang 1974, 613.

u Ibid；613f. S3

See Fang 1988, 530.

M See Xiao 1981; Xu 1983; Zhao 1986. S5

Cf. above.

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

351

nevertheless still to be distributed after the publication of the revised edi­ tion.86 14.3.4.1. Principles of Revision At an August 1984 meeting of die involved Churches and representatives of the UBS in Taiwan, the principles for revision were discussed and defined: 1. Punctuation: Use the punctuation marks used by everyday authors. 2. Names of Persons: Revise a small number of personal names which are crude or easily misunderstood (the former like Jacob’s son liubian 流 便 （ Reuben) [directly translated: "flowingly relieving oneselP]; the latter like youadie 友 阿 爹 (Euodia) which may be under­ stood as being of masculine gender [the last syllable die 爹 has the meaning “father”】，or nigedimu 尼 哥 底 母 (Nicodemus) which may be understood as being of feminine gender [see fn. 52]). List tbe re­ vised names in a comparative table of revised names in the appendix. 3. Places: Alter biblical geographical names according to current usage, like shibanya 士班雅 to xibanya 西 班 牙 【 Spain】. List old and new names in a comparative table in the appendix. 4. Chinese Characters: As much as possible, alter characters which cannot be read (aloud) or are of a locally restricted use, to characters which can be understood by an average reader and are of commonly used modem Chinese. 5. Words: Some words in the Union Version were appropriate and well defined at the time it was made, but after having gone through many changes they may have developed a different meaning. To avoid confusing the reader, change these to words which can be understood by everyone. 6. Pronouns: Use the [masculine】pronoun ta 他 if applied to “God,” **Jesus," “Holy Spirit" and for [persons of] masculine and feminine gender; use t h e 【 neuter] pronoun ta 它 if applied to animals or things. 7. Particles at the End of Phrases: Revise particles at the end of phrases like ya P牙 or a 啊 according to the natural trend of standard pronun­ ciation. 8. Official Titles: If a title must be revised, use another ancient official title that is fairly well known, but add an annotation to make the range and office of administration clear to the reader. [For "procon­ sul,"] for instance, use zongdu 總 當 （ “viceroy”）instead of fangbo 方伯（ “governor”).

86 See Liang 丨 986, 26.

352

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

9. Words and Sentences: If expressions are awkward to some readers, revise them without harming the original style to make them under­ stood or smoother when read aloud. These include: 1) words which are difficult to interpret; 2) words which belong to the classical or semi-classical language (change these to colloquial words under the condition that this does not influence the meaning); 3) some sen­ tences with unclear meaning; 4) sentences which are grammatically incomplete, especially those without a subject. 10. Division of Sections: Do not change chapters and paragraphs, but for the sake of clarity do something about the division of sections; at the same time consider revising those headings which do not conform with the contents of the biblical text. 11. Biblical Text: For the revision of the New Testament, use the third edition of the Greek text of the United Bible Societies; for the Old Testament, use the Hebrew text of the United Bible Societies. In case there is a discrepancy between the text of the Union Version and the original texts, do not revise sentences of great familiarity, but add an annotation to explain that other manuscripts have a different reading. 12. Familiar Terms: Do not alter them; in cases of unclearness add an annotation, or explain it in [a list] of short annotations. 13. Time, Currency, and Measurements: Render according to the old version, but list the metric system or a table with today’s exchange rates in the appendix and add explanations.17 (Auth • lation.) After the princq)les were deckled iqx>n, a revision co was formed which started its work in Taiwan in 1985. After being coiiq)leted, the manuscript was to go through an examination by a review committee and a consultative committee.88 In 1986, a tentative revised edition of Matthew was published and sent out for criticism, as well as an edition of Romans in 1991 In the 48 verses of the first two chapters of Matthew, there are 22 tex­ tual changes, not counting repetitive changes or changes of punctuation. This accounts to approximately one change per every other verse, or about half of the changes of the 1918 revision.89 In comparison, the 1984 revision of the Luther Bible has 53 revisional changes in the same chapters, more than twice as many as the Union Version.90 This con^arison may seem 87 Quoted ibid. ** Cf. above. w Seech. 14.1. Not counting slight revisions of names of persons, repetitive changes, or verb forms, etc.

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

353

somewhat farfetched, but considering that the 1984 revision of the Luther Bible also was to be kept very modest after the strong protest against the more radical revision of 1975 (which in this passage had 81 changes),91 it shows the very great caution of the Union Version revisers in this tentative edition of Matthew. The changes in the first two chapters of Matthew of the Union Version included characters which had developed different forms due to grammati­ cal differentiations in the course of the last decades,92 including pronouns;93 terms which had altered their meaning94 or appeared to be of classical char­ acter;95 phrases which were stylistically uncouth96 or difficult to under­ stand;97 and incongruent translations.98 In famous passages in the Gospel of Matthew, parts “of great familiar­ ity, there is an even more limited number of changes. In the Lord’s Prayer (6:1-13) there is no revisional change, in the Beatitudes (5:3-10) only two,100 and in the Great Commission (28:18-20) one.101 For a list of the criticism of the 1975 edition, see Hammer 1980, 76-80. 92

Such as the particle de 的 which has, according to different usage, developed the other forms of de 地 and 办 得 （ 1:19; 2:7).

93

The revision did not follow principle 6 which called for the masculine pronoun for persons of feminine gender, but instead used ta 她，the feminine pronoun (1:19, 20, 21; 2:18). Sinian 思 念 —"long for; miss"—had been the translation of "consider" (1:20) and was changed to today’s common term kaolU 考想.

9S

Yingqu 迎 娶 一“marry (literally: husband receives new bride)"—for ovv£pxo(xai (“come together [in sexual intercourse]," 1:18) was considered as too classical and one-sided and thus changed to chenghun |戌 婚 一“marry” (which nevertheless is not a direct translation either).

96

Dadade huanxi 大大的歡喜 一“very, very happy" (2:10)—sounded rather unso­ phisticated and was changed to the modem feichang huanxi 非货歡喜 一“extremely happy”.

91

For instance, 耶路撒冷合城的人 一“the people of the whole city of Jerusalem" (for: “all Jerusalem," 2:3)—was changed to 如路撒冷企城的人. The adjective he 合 of the old edition was difficult to understand because it is rarely used today in this meaning, but rather in the sense of "combined." Quart 金，tbe adjective used in the new edition, bears the meaning “whole, conq)lete.N

98

In 2:13, the old version had Tf?茗小孩子同他母親 一“take the child with his mother"—and in 2:20 Tf?茗小孩子和他母親 一“take the child and his mother"—for the same Greek text; the former was thus changed to agree with the latter.

99

See principle 11. Wenrou 溫 柔 一“soft and mild”一in verse 5 was changed to rouhe 柔和 which has a similar meaning but not the possible erotic connotation of the former. Also, in verse

354

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

14.3.5. Moderate Revisions of Union Version Three ottier projects for minor revisions of the Union Version were launched and completed in the 1980s and 1990s. 14.3.5.1. United Bible Societies* Efforts Parallel to the work on the Union Version revision by the UBS, a second Union Version revision project of a much smaller scale was acconq>lished. The Chinese Union Version with New Punctuation (新標 點 和 合 本 ）was published by the UBS in 1988. Unlike its title suggests, however, this revi­ sion did not only include the punctuation, but also some more thoroughgo­ ing points of the translation as well. The new edition’s preface describes the revisional changes: (1) the punctuation was changed towards a system in common use (cf. principle 1 of the above-quoted principles for revision); (2) poetic passages of the original texts were printed in an arrangement of lines displaying the characteristic form of poetry; (3) some characters which were no longer in current usage were substituted with a different form of the same character;102 (4) names of persons were changed accord­ ing to principle 2 above, plus those which were written differently in cur­ rent common use;103 (5) geographical names were changed according to modem usage (cf. principle 3); (6) references were made to parallel readings under the headlines of sections; (7) the following pronouns of the third person were used: for the masculine (including die persons of die Trinity) gender the masculine pronoun ta 他 ，for the feminine gender the feminine pronoun ta 她 ，for animals the neuter pronoun ta 牠 ，and for things the neuter pronoun ta 它丨w(a revised form of principle 6); (8) the genitive par9, the phrase 上帝的兒子 一“sons of God"— is changed to 上带的兒女—"chil­ dren of God." The former is an accurate renderiog of the original (uioi deou), but the latter is a translation according to the understanding of many modern Bible translators. 101 Jiaoxun 教訓 in verse 20 has the strong connotation of **chide" today, whereas the newly employed term jiaodao 教導 has a neutral meaning of “teach”. 102 For instance cai 七 for ecu 嫌. 10} For instance “Cyrus” was transliterated with sailushi 塞爸、 十 insteadof gulie •占列 (see Dan. 1:21). 104 This somewhat uncommon distinction between the two forms of the pronoun for the neuter gender is explained by the **cattle"-radical (令) in the pronoun for animals and the uhouse"-radical (—) in the pronoun for things (cf. fn. 24; for the develop­ ment of different genders of the pronoun of the third person from 1918 on, see Ling 1989).

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

355

tide de 的 was added between related geographical (or personal) names;105 (9) terms which occurred in both the Old and New Testaments were uni­ fied; (10) parentheses were used in two forms, one to mark added notes of the translators which were written in smaller characters, and another to arentheses in the original text. ise revisional changes of this new edition which were not just of an editorial character (as points 2, 6, and 10) included some of the changes planned for the more thorough revision (as points 1, 4, 5, and [partly】7 )， and also some which went beyond the first set of principles (as points 3, [partly] 7 ，8，and 9). Nevertheless, none of these revisional changes in­ cluded any major stylistic or terminological changes of the biblical text, so that it could hardly be protested against. In the chapters of Matdiew ana­ lyzed above, only different forms of pronouns and the particle de 的 were introduced (see fh. 92). 14.3.5.2. Baptist Efforts The Baptist churches had used editions of the Union Version—in tiie begin­ ning especially the Easy Wenli New Testament—from as early as 1902.106 In 1954, the Baptist Press丨 07 was permitted to use a set of printing plates of the Union Version to produce its own edition of the Mandarin Union Ver­ sion.10* However, because this edition was issued before the first editorial changes ith the Baptist term for “baptism” were made to die Union Version in 1962,109 the B叩 tist church was still using the old Union Version edition with the title Jiuxinyue quanshu 舊新約全書 up to 1993. In November of 1993, a revised Union Version with Modem Punctuation (Red Letter, Shen and Jin E dition)(現 代 標 點 和 合 本 〔浸 ，神 ，紅 字 版 〕 was published by the Baptist Press. Work on this edition had started two years earlier, in 1991,111 and was a revision of the moderate 1988 UBS revision of the Un­ ion Version. The principles of revision as stated in the preface are of a 105 For example 猶大的伯利® instead of 猶大伯利tS (MBethlehem in Judah," Judg. 17:7). 106 Seech. 11.3.2. 107 The Baptist Press (浸信會出版针was founded in Hong Kong after the China Bap­ tist Publication Society (see ch. 11.3.2) had ceased its work. m S 6 e / I B S 1955, 280. 109 See fa. 64. 110 Original English and Chinese titles. 111 See "Jin" zi ban shengjing in licheng 1993.

356

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

similar but more conservative nature than those of tbe 1988 edition. Besides the sole use of shen 神 for “G o d , and the employment of the character jin 浸 in terms referring to “baptism,” the punctuation and the modem distinc­ tion of pronouns of the 1988 edition were used, and some transliterations of personal and geographical names were revised. The changes in transliteration are much more limited than in the 1988 edition: only diose revised transliterations of the 1988 revision which would neither have an effect on die pronunciation nor on the number of characters were retained.112 This meant that transliterations like nigedimu 尼哥底母 or liubian 流 f更113 were not changed because their revised counterparts (mgedemu 尼哥德幕 and liibian 呂便）are pronounced differently, ^or die old transliteration for “Cyprus” (jubilu 居 比路 > was kept, even though the cur­ rent official transliteration is saipulusi 塞 浦 路 斯 . In cases like the latter, the official term is added in parentheses. 14.3.5.3. Mainland Efforts Beginning in 1980, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement of the Protestant Churches in China (中國基督教三自愛國運動）reprinted die Union Ver­ sion from the old 1919 edition with non-simplified characters. A moderate revision of the Union Version was started, similar to the UBS efforts.114 In 1987, the NT with Psalms, and in 1989 the complete Bible, were published with simplified characters,"5 new punctuation, new divisions of paragraphs with headings, modem distinction of genders in pronouns and die particle

Of the altogether 26 revised transliterations, four geographical terms were changed regardless of their altered pronunciation: shibanya 十班牙 to xibanya 两班牙 (“Spain”), lObiya 呂彼亞 to libiya 利 比 亞 （ “Libya”), yalabo 亞拉伯 to alabo 阿拉 fl!j (**Arabia"), and gaisaliya 該撒 fij亞 to kaisaliya Sll撒 利 亞 （ “Caesaria”). The first three were altered because of their importance, but tbe last seems inconsisteitt, especially because the transliteration of “Caesar” (gaisa 該撒）was not changed. See above. For a description of the revision work on the New Testament, see Sben 1987. This also included the elimination of variants of characters. Yu 怒 in John 1:13, for example, was changed to yu 欲，thus ignoring a slight variation in meaning. In the preface of the 1989 edition of the Bible, two examples of words are given where to­ day's use limits two former variants to one: fushi 月 g 半 —**serve"—is today only written as 服 侍 （ Matt. 12:26)，and xiaomie 銷滅 一“exterminate”一only as 消滅 (Acts 19:27). The UBS edition of 1988 had also changed the latter but not the for-

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

357

de 的 ，some revised transliterations for geographical names,1,6 and hori­ zontal lines. This revision was thus mostly of an editorial nature. 14.3.6. Revision Efforts in Mainland China Meanwhile the Three-Self Church also started to work on a more thorough revision of the Union Version. In 1979, Ding Guangxun 丁 光 訓 ，chairman of the Three-Self Movement and president of Nanjing Union Theological Seminary (金 陵協 和 神 學 院 )，gathered a group of scholars of the Nanjing Seminary, including Wang Shenyin 王 神 蔭 ，Chen Zemin 陳 澤 民 ，and Luo Zhenfang 路 振 芳 ， to revise the Union Version.w Ding described as rea­ sons for the revision the development of Chinese since the publication of the Union Version and the advancement of biblical studies."8 The work was taken up immediately, and the revision of the four Gospels was Hnished in 1981. The revision was to keep closely to the old Union Version’s text. Besides the introduction of a new punctuation system and the use of simpli­ fied characters (as used in mainland China), it also was to include changes in terminology.119 These changes fell into three categories. The first included the exchange of terms which were wrongly used, like the ancient term qianliang 錢 糧 一“land-taxes”一for “pay, wages” in Luke 3:14 with liangxiang 糧 納 ，an ancient term for “(soldier’s) pay.” The second category included those terms which were not suitable or did not give the accurate meaning, like youxing 游行1 for “to go about, to walk around” (jiEpuiaxeaj) (John 7:1) which today predominantly means 44demonstrate, march.” The third category included those terms or phrases which wrongly translated the original. 他 豈 不 撇 下 這 九 十 九 隻 ， 山 裏 去 找 . . . 一“would he not leave the ninety nine (sheep) and go into the mountains to search ...” —of the Union Version in Matt. 18:12 was translated (and still is in the revised 1986 edition) according to the traditional interpretation of the Authorized Version, Version，English English Revised Version, or American Standard Version. According rdine to modem interpretation this phrase f would have to be Only those transliterations were changed which are not known as distinctive biblical terms to believers and whose modern counterparts are very well known (shibanya 十班牙 was changed to xibanya 内班牙，“Spain”，but jubilu 居比路 was not ex­ changed with its modern counterpart saipulusi 塞浦路斯，“Cyprus” ；see Shen 1987, 20). See Wang (Weifan) 1992, 83. See Wang (Shenyin) 1981, 10. Principles of revision, see Wang 1981, lOff.

358

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

translated a s 他 豈 不 撇 下 這 九 十 九 隻 在 山 上 ，去 找 . . . 一 “would he not leave the ninety nine (sheep) on the mountain and go and search Passages of great familiarity, such as the Lord’s Prayer or the Prologue in the Gospel of John, were only to be altered in rare instances, and then with the addition of footnotes.120 Transliterations were not to be changed. Only those geographical terms which have changed in modern language were listed in a con^parative table in the s^pendix with their modern counterparts. In addition to these changes, two new terms were to be introduced which had not been used in biblical vocabulary before: jianren 堅 ;^ — Msteadfast and persevering "—and shenduan 審 斷 一“judge.” The former is used in passages like Mark 13:13 but the one who endures to the end, he shall be saved") where the old version had rennai 忍而it 一 “patience，to restrain oneself"—which was felt to be not strong enough. The second new term, shenduan, is remarkable because of its rare occurrence. The old ver­ sion in Matt. 7:1 (“do not judge lest you be judged'') used the term lunduan 論 斷 一 “judge”一which was seen as unsuitable because it usually refers to judgment in the scientific world. Shenpan 審 判 —**judge"—would have been the right term if it had not been a legal term. The new term shenduan, therefore, is a combination which does not have any of the above connota­ tions. According to Wang (1981, 12), piping 批 評 一“judge, criticize”一 the term used in other Chinese translations from Hong Kong,121 could not be used in the Three-Self revision of the Union Version because it today has a new meaning for the people in our country. It no longer has a necessarily derogatory meaning; instead, it also stands for the devel­ opment of strong points and the elimination of errors which often is a way to increase understanding. (Author’s translation.) This statement is crucial as a justification for separate translation or revi­ sion activities. Criticism (of oneself and otiiers) is an essential part of the political life of die People’s Republic of China. According to this state­ ment, political life and its language divide the language and the church of

As an example for the Prologue, Wang (1981. 11) gives the translation of K o r t a XapPdvo) in verse 5 with jieshou 接 受 一“accept, receive." Jieshou, though not a wrong translation, only gives one aspect of the meaning of the original, and thus shengguo 勝 過 —14succeed, superior to"—is added in a footnote. Wang gives Shengjing xinyiben (published 1976/1992) and Dangdai shengjing (pub­ lished 1979) as examples. The former has changed its translation in later editions to panduan 尖ij斷 —"judge." An early Chinese translation which also uses piping but is not listed by Shen is the translation by Zhu Baohui.

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

359

the Chinese-speaking world, making it vitally important to have a separate revision Bible for the church of mainland China. Neve ss, the principles of revision are similar to the princq)les of the Union Version revision presently being carried out by the UBS in Hong Kong and Taiwan, even though tiiey are described with different terms. The first two categories of the mainland revision covering wrongly or unsuitable terms are comparable to the Bible societies’ revisional es due to changes in modem Chinese; the third category of modem Biblical science is also covered by the Bible Societies’ rules. The concept of cau­ tious revision is also very similar, especially concerning passages of great familiarity, but there is a notable difference in the greater conservatism displayed in the rules of the mainland revision. Transliterations were not changed, though many critics felt them to be in desperate need of a revi­ sion, nor were any stylistic changes considered. The exanq)les of actual revision noted above are all cases where an outstanding need for revision existed. Unfortunately, it is not possible to compare these principles with the actual revision. The revised parts—which eventually included not only the Gospels but also Acts, the Pauline Epistles, and die Psalms122—were never published. According to Wang (1992, 83), in 1980, in the apost-Cultural Revolution era," a time of great activity began for the Protestant church in mainland China and for Nanjing Seminary, making it inqx)ssible to con­ tinue the efforts on revision. Nevertheless, scholars from Nanjing Seminary have joined die UBS ef­ forts on the revision of the Union Version, a move which will doubtlessly help die revised Union Version to gain wider acceptance. 14.4. Summary The Wenli translation of the Union Version, though executed with much vigor and enthusiasm, proved ultimately to be a failure in its lack of popu­ larity among readers; even those who did first use it quickly exchanged it for the Mandarin edition. The success of the Mandarin edition, on the other hand, can largely be attributed to the unique historical situation at its publi­ cation. Because of the “May Fourth Movement” and the growing impor­ tance of Mandarin literature, the Mandarin Union Version enjoyed immense popularity, even far beyond the Christian Church.

122 See Wang 1992, 83.

360

P a r t 2 • C h a p t e r 14

The reception that the Union Version received from Western missionar­ ies was never euphoric, even though the Union Version was definitely un­ derstood as an improvement upon former versions. The missionaries were aware of the limitations of a Bible translated by foreigners, and expressed their expectation of Chinese translators to take over responsibility for the work of Bible translation. It was thus not surprising that two of the Chinese Union Version assistants did retranslate die NT. Wang Bacrfiui’s translation was found to be in a very direct correlation with die Union Version, so much so that it almost could be considered a revision instead of a new translation. This also implies that Wang was apparently in close agreement with die translation principles of his employer, Mateer, an argument for the existence of a more active or positive Chinese participation in the transla­ tion of the Union Version than has hidierto been assumed.123 Zhu Badiui, on the other hand, demonstrated with his translation his disagreement with the translation principles of his deceased Western colleague, Sydenstricker. Ironically, it was especially Sydenstricker who had lamented the subservi­ ence of the Chinese assistants to the missionaries during the translation sessions, a description that apparently fit Zhu’s relationship to him as well. Zhu, the first independent Chinese translator of the NT, did surprisingly not primarily strive for an improvement of style, which was always under­ stood to be the responsibility of the Chinese translators in the translation processes, but rather for a translation of greater fidelity. The difficult process of criticism and revision of the Union Version can only be explained by an extremely conservative understanding of Bible translation. The Chinese church would not allow its “classic” to be altered to any great degree, nor did competing translations have a great chance to find acceptance. The Union Version of the Bible, more than any of its predecessors, had become the authorized Bible in the Chinese-speaking world. Though valid grounds for a revision surfaced soon after its publica­ tion-above all the rapid changes in Mandarin language since 1919—it still has not resulted in a complete revision more than 75 years after its publica­ tion. In the three moderate revisions which have been published, differing degrees of conservatism could be established. The version of the Three-Self Church in mainland China limited the revision of its version to mostly edi­ torial changes, which for the greatest part could be established for the Bap­ 123 In a coittrasting view, the very existence of a new translation of a Chinese member of the Union Version committee has also been interpreted (by a Chinese author) as a sign of strong disagreement with the result of that version (see Ye 1977, 14).

U n io n V e r s io n ：D e v e l o p m e n t s a f t e r P u b l i c a t i o n

361

tist version as well. The UBS revision of 1988 contained a few more revisional changes. The more thorough yet futile revision attempts by ttie Three-Self Church can partly be attributed to the political situation and the resulting changes in the Chinese language but also to the desire to make a political statement.

15 CONCLUSION

The history of the Union Version described here cannot be viewed as an isolated occurrence in the history of the Protestant Church and mission in China. Instead, as suggested by the second part of the thesis’s title—77k Culmination o f Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China—it was the end of a development of well over a century’s time and concluded the missionaries’ efforts in this field of their work. The Bible was the foundation that all missions and missionaries agreed on, and there was thus no Held in Protestant missions otfier than Bible translation where cooperation was more necessary. It was therefore inevita­ ble-considering the disagreement in other areas of mission work—that the field of Bible translation would also be subject to conflict. 15.1. Perception o f Style Possibly the most important factor in the history of the Union Version and Chinese missionary Bible translation was the missionaries’ changing under­ standing and perception of the Chinese lan its different styles. Morrison adopted a style of Chinese fi asset manuscript which was comparable to the later translations in lower classical. But as i as the leading gro叩 among the missionary translators fully realized reat potential of classical Chinese, they—tfie Delegates’ Version translators— chose a more exalted form of that style of language with the hope of exerting influence on the highly educated classes of the Chinese society. This idea was not unique to the Chinese mission, as reflected in a state­ ment by W. Wright of the BFBS: In every country having a written language, to which missionaries have gone, they have yielded to the literary pride of native scholars and made the style of the Bible too high, with the result that new translations had to be made into the language of common life; sometimes more than one before the proper level was reached. The Bible Society has spent many

364

C o n c l u s io n

thousands of pounds in vain through this mistake of translators.1 (Italics in original.) The missionaries' excitement about the “discoveries” of Mandarin and lower classical showed indeed that the high style of the Delegates’ Version had not satisfied the needs of the Protestant mission. The necessity of a Bible not only for the literati but also for die common people was urgently felt, and translations in Mandarin and lower classical increasingly attempted to supplant the Delegates' Version. Chart 2 (see appendix) displays die great amount of classical Bible translation activity between 1850 and 1870, followed by a radical cessation of classical translation that was only taken up again during the translation of die Union Version. The Union Version project experienced a similar process with its trans­ lation into the high classical style which had no impact and eventually dis­ appeared a few years after its publication. The insistence of the European missionaries on sustaining their greatest literary pride—the Delegates’ Ver­ sion—in a revised form as part of the Union Version scheme had fo the commencement of the High Wenli Union Version, regardless of true necessity or lack thereof. The perception of “Easy Wenli" suffered under the fact that it was a style with a great number of models of widely varying style. The early translators Burdon/Blodget and G. John had taken very different ap­ proaches, and the 1890 conference could not propose any one of these styles as a model for fear of excluding the opposing group of missionaries from the translation scheme. As it was, the Easy Wenli Union Version translators chose yet anottier approach by granting themselves great liberty from the original translation plan. They did not feel obligated to translate into a “good style,” but instead, very similar to Morrison, aimed at an extremely literal translation. The Easy Wenli Union Version translation failed, therefore, because of a lack of initial definition and boundaries, which the translators extended into an extreme independence from nearly all aspects of the original Union Version plan. The Mandarin version was the only one of die three translations in the Union Version scheme which was seen as a necessity by all missionaries. Though the Peking Version had already been a Munion version" in Manda­ rin, the British side no longer accepted it as such. Especially after the failed attempt to transform G. John’s Mandarin version into a union version, the

1 Quoted in Mateer 1908, 605.

C o n c l u s io n

365

inclusion of a Mandarin translation in the Union Version scheme was with­ out question. The changes of perception experienced by the Mandarin committee throughout the time of translation can partly be explained by a change of leadership. Mateer had originally advocated a far more colloquial form of Mandarin than Goodrich, shaped after the spoken language. But during the OT translation, with Mateer’s absence the remining translators extended their views towards a higher style of Mandarin. This can only be explained by the missionaries’ changing perspective of the increasing role of Manda­ rin as a language of literature and influence. 15.2. Perception o f Translation The perception of textual fidelity and the requirements of translation in general underwent significant changes from the beginnings of Chinese Bible translation to the completion of the Union Version. However, it was not a linear process. The first groups of translators, Marshman/Lassar and Morrison/Milne, had an understanding of translation which aimed at reproducing the text into a formal equivalent of the source text. With this approach, they turned the translated text into a product which—beyond single phrases and terms— did not consider the comprehension needs of the Chinese reader. The next generation of missionaries, especially as represented by Medhurst, tried to go the opposite way. They had experienced the earlier trans­ lations' failure to communicate the message of the Bible, a goal which they now primarily aimed at. Unfortunately, this was atten^)ted at a time when the Bible societies could not accept such an approach to translation. The concept of absolute translatability and the closely connected idea of one “authorized version” were predominant. Nevertheless, Medhurst was able to fulfill his translation ideals to some degree in the translation of the Dele­ gates' Version, the most influential Chinese Bible translation of the last century. Its critics condemned the Delegates1 Version as too unfaithful to the original texts, a criticism which even its supporters agreed with, al­ though they judged the supposed beauty of its style to outweigh the diver­ gence from the original texts in import Though in many ways an outcome Delegates’ Version, the Union Version’s approach to translation was a direct reaction against its translation principles. This explains why two of the three Union Version committees— the Mandarin and, to an extreme degree, the Easy Wenli committee—at­ tempted to translate quite literally, once again tending toward a formally

366

C o n c l u s io n

equivalent translation. The Easy Wenli translation was rejected by the pub­ lic—as were previous versions like Hudson's or Chalmers/Schaub*s—be­ cause of its extreme fidelity, while the Mandarin committee had to redefine its idea of textual faithfulness toward a more liberal approach, similar to that of the Peking Version. Only the leading members of the (High) Wenli Union Version commit­ tee, Sheffield and Wherry, had an 印 proach throughout the translation work which was somewhat independent from these extremes. While they rejected the Delegates’ Version’s approach to textual fidelity, they also tried to avoid literal translation by accepting the limits of translatability on the one hand, and attempting to use the “genius of Chinese language” on the other. 15.3. Chinese Assistants Unfortunately, little is known about the Chinese assistants of the Mandarin committee during the OT translation. It is certain, though, that the Manda­ rin Union Version OT translation was the first missionary Bible translation where the Chinese assistants were given the same voting rights as the Western missionaries. Chinese participation in missionary Bible translation in China had come a long way from the minimal role played in the transla­ tions of Morrison/Milne, Marshman/Lassar, or Gutzlaff. This had changed briefly in the relative prominence of Chinese translators under Medhurst and especially Goddard, but reverted once again to absolute anonymity under Bridgman/Culbertson, John, the Easy Wenli Union Version transla­ tors, and Chalmers/Schaub. An awareness of the growing independence of the Chinese Church, and, at the same time, a much more realistic under­ standing of dieir own limitations in the foreign language pronpted the Mandarin Union Version missionary translators to open the work for more participation by the Chinese translators. 15.4. Conflict-Avoiding Strategies The divided groups of missionaries would most probably never have come to a decision regarding the Union Version- if they would not have made 44politically motivated decisions” in order to avoid conflicts. Outcomes of strategic decisions of this sort were the dual classical version, the non­ committal statements on the translation for “God,” “Spirit,” and **baptism,” the Greek basis text, and the three officially prescribed basis versions for the Mandarin Union Version NT translation. Any speculation on whether the Union Version project could have been launched without this conflict-avoiding strategy is purely in the realm of subjective evaluation,

C o n c l u s io n

367

but it is a fact that these points set the stage for the conflict that eventually contributed greatly to the difficulty and length of the project. 15.5. Questions o f Personality Still other conflicts were rooted in interpersonal relationships. A transla­ tor's evaluation of his own competence tended to determine his ability to cooperate with others. Those who felt honored to be elected into the High Wenli committee prided themselves on being experts in the field of classical Chinese. They had devoted their lives in China to the study of the canonical books and were therefore unwilling to give way to the opinions of others regarding their specialty. The Easy Wenli translators, on the other hand, worked with a style of language which was by no means pre-defined, and thus no one could consider himself to be a true expert. Compromises were an essential part of their work. The Mandarin committee consisted of men who had distinct ideas about their style of language, which they had been promoting and teaching for years. This also resulted in conflict, but it was a conflict which proved to be solvable over the years because of die trans­ lators * perception of a yet nature of Mandarin. The history of Bible tr is described in diis thesis is a history of dominating leaders. Morrison, Medhurst, and G. John were the dominating missionaries of the 19th century in the field of Bible translation, and at the time of the Union Version it was Sheffield in the High Wenli committee, and Mateer and Bailer in the Mandarin committee. In those few committees without a dominant leader, such as those of the Peking Version, the Easy Wenli NT, and the Wenli OT Union Version, the translation work benefited greatly, at least regarding to the speed of its accomplishment. 15.6. The Bible Societies The missionary translation of the Bible in China belongs to the period that has been named die “Bible Society Era" of worldwide Bible translation,2 an appellation that is well-demonstrated by the highly important position of the Bible societies in China.

2

See Smalley 1991, 27f. He assigns this label to the period of a time from 1804 until 1943. The starting point is accurate for China, but the end of the era in China would coincide with the end of the Union Version project. Nida (1972, IX) calls the same period the “missionary endeavor," which illustrates the interdependence between Bible societies and the missionaries.

368

C o n c l u s io n

The preliminary history of the Union Version was determined by the Bi­ ble societies’ power struggle for a strong position among the missionaries in China. This competition made an early union version impossible: the ABS demanded a revision of the version by Bridgman/Culbertson or the Peking Version; the BFBS insisted on a revision of the Delegates’ Version and possibly committee work under the leadership of John; and the NBSS clung loyally to its rights to the versions by John, which defined its position in China. Nevertheless, it was this complicated and unfortunate situation that finally motivated the Protestant mission to come together in 1890 for a project as large as the Union on. The position of the Bible eties in the pre-Union Version time was characterized by an interdependence between the missionaries and the Bible societies; during the Union Version translation work, their role became increasingly one of leadership. This was indicated by the determination of the “Compromise Term” and the policy in regard to the Baptists under their leadership; their full support of the Mandarin translators from 1913 on; and the stronger positions of their agents as members of the executive committees for the OT translation, positions which towards the end of the translation turned into roles of full authority. Several reasons contributed to this changing position of the Bible societies: tfie agents of the BFBS and ABS, Bondfield (from 1895 on) and Hykes (from 1893 on),3 enjoyed the trust of the missionaries; the Bible societies had shown great interest in the ongoing proceedings of the Union Version*; and the BFBS and the ABS— the NBSS was never as much involved—reached a higher degree of coopera­ tion than ever before in China. 15.7. Overcoming the Haste The Catholic Church had its first complete Chinese Bible translation in 1961, more than seven hundred years after the start of a Catholic mission in China. In contrast, the first Protestant missionary arrived in China in 1807 and had the complete Bible translated and published 16 years later. The difference is striking, and a great number of theological and political rea3

In an obituary for Bondfield, MacGillivray (1925, 822) even goes so far as to state: “It is no exaggeration to say that if you desire to see his monument, you can find it in the beautiful Union versions of the Scriptures that are found scattered all over China." Hykes had been involved from the beginning of the Union Version project as a member of the Mandarin tion committee.

4

The only Chinese translator member was Cheng Jingyi.

by both the ABS and BFBS as an honorary

C o n c l u s io n

369

sons could be cited to explain it. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the first Protestant Bible translations were productions of great haste, a char­ acteristic which did not contribute to their quality. The Union Version with its almost three decades of translation work stands in sharp contrast to that. 15.8. Conservatism and Revision Bible translation in China did not occur in a vacuum. Developments in the United States and Great Britain were of particular influence. The publica­ tion of the English Revised Version and later the American Standard Ver­ sion had a definite impact on the commencement and proceedings of the Union Version. And the publication of other more colloquial translations, such as those by Weymouth or Moffatt, contributed to a different view on the authorization of a Bible translation. In light of the great effort exerted by the Protestant mission in China to produce the Union Version, it was remarkable that one of the first reactions from the missionary body after its publication was a statement that this Bible translation would not be a final version, but only of temporary use, to be eventually replaced by a transla­ tion made by Chinese. The conservatism of former times, which had found such clear expression in the adherence to the versions of Morrison/Milne or the Delegates' Version, had come to an end. The linguistic limitations of the foreigner in Chinese were finally realized, as well as an understanding that language was subject to change, meaning that no text, including a Bible translation, could retain its meaning over indefinite pe of time. Ironically, by the time the missionaries had arriv tfiat conclusion, the Chinese Church had developed a conservatism of its own. Throughout the 19th century, Bible translation had been the story of missionaries: they guided or undertook the translations, and they also decided which versions to use for their churches. In the 20th century, the Chinese Church had be­ come an independent entity, ready to voice its own view for the first time. The result was a majority perception of the Union Version as an authorized version—a far broader majority than anyone would have anticipated. The authorization that the Union Version experienced in the Chinese Church was not endowed because of its merits as a good translation, but rather through its status as a Chinese “canonical book" (jing), which is viewed as authentic and not to be altered. What has been called the “King James ver­ sion effect"5—referring to the view of the language as sacred and unalter­ able, regardless of the quality of die translation—manifested itself in China 5

See Smalley 1991, 50.

370

C o n c l u s io n

to a perhaps uiq>aralleled degree, possibly because of the very name of the Bible in Chi nese— Canonical Book.” This phenomenon differed greatly from the missionaries' previous loyalty to earlier versions. The BFBS had adhered to the version by Morrison/Milne because of its adoration for Morrison and its pride in die first translation of die Chinese Bible, and the European missionaries were reluctant to let go of the Dele­ gates' Version because of their pride in the accomplishments of their fellow translators. However, as problematic as these notions were for the progress of Bible translation, they were of a subjective nature; in contrast, the idea that the translated Bible is literally the “Word of God" is for the Christian believer an objective fact and therefore indisputable. The Chinese Mandarin Union Version has maintained its surpremacy through eight decades be­ cause of this perception in the Chinese Protestant Church.

16. BIBLIOGRAPHY

16.1. Unpublished Material ABCFM. Letter to ABS. 24 Sept. 1912. American Bible Society Archives, New York. ABMU. Letter to E.C. Lord. 28 March 1863. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. Allen, Y.L. Letter to Martin Schaub. 21 Sept. 1891. Basel Mission Archives, Basel. APM. Letter to ABS. 17 Oct. 1912. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Bartel, Paul Henry. “The Chinese Bible: Being a Historical Survey of its Translation.” Ph.D. diss” University of Chicago, 1946. BFBS. Letter to Medhurst. 2 Dec. 1836. South China and Ultra Ganges, in­ coming corresp., box 3, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. BFBS. Minutes of 3 Jan. 1906. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Blodget, Henry. Letter to ABCFM. Dec. 1S61. American Board of Commis­ sioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence re­ ceived, vol. 1. By permission of tiie Houghton Library, Harvard Univer­ sity. 一 . Letters to ABCFM. 14 Jan. 1891; 14 May 1891; 3 Sept. 1891; 25 Nov.

1891. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence received, vol. 17. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University. — . Letter to ABS. 14 June 1890. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Bondfield, G.H. Bible Revision: Special Report by the General Secretary. 11 Jan. 1912. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letters to BFBS. 1908; 10 Jan. 1920. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to R.T. Bryan. 21 Aug. 1901. American Bibla Society Archives, New York.

372

B ib l io g r a p h y

一 . Letters to Spencer Lewis. 28 June 1918 (unsent); 1 July 1918. American

Bible Society Archives, New York. Brown, William. Letter to LMS. 12 April 1806. South China, incoming corresp., box 1，folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and African Studies, London. Buck, Pearl S. In Memoriam. n.d. Presbyterian Office of History. Philadel­ phia. Chalmers, John. Letters to LMS. 30 Oct. 1890; 19 Feb. 1891; 10 Dec. 1891; 12 May 1892; 30 Nov. 1892. South China, incoming corresp., box 11. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Stud­ ies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 28 Feb. 1894. South China, incoming corresp., box 12. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Stud­ ies, London. — • Letters to LMS. 1 Jan. 18%; 19 July 1897. South China, incoming cor­ resp., box 13. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Notes on N.T. Prefer Names, Rendered into Chinese as in List by Dr. Graves, Herewith Returned, ms. 1897. Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention Archives, Richmond. Chambers, R.E. Letter to J. Hykes. 26 July 1907. American Bible Society Ar­ chives, New York. Coryell, Dorothea Smith. Love's Calls to China. Chauncey Goodrich: A Biog­ raphy. n.d. Nanking Theological Seminary Library, Nanking. Dean, William. Letters to ABMU. 27 March 1847; 18 June 1847; 12 Oct. 1848; 23 Jan. 1849; 25 Aug. 1865. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. Devans, Thomas T. Letter to GMC. 1 Jan. 1845. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. Dyer, Samuel, Evans, John. Letter to BFBS. 27 April 1836. China Malacca, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to K.F.A. GQtzlaff. 25 April 1836. China Malacca, incoming cor­ resp., box 3, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and African Studies, London. Edkins, John. Letter to G.H. Bondfield. 16 March 1898. American Bible ety Archives, New York.

B ib l io g r a p h y

373

Letter to LMS. Sept. 1852. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, Londor — . Letter to LMS. 4 May 1871. North China, incoming corresp., box 2, folder 4. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, London. Finance Committee on Bible Revision. Minutes. 8 June 1917. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Foster, Arnold. Letter to LMS. 16 Feb. 1891. Central China, incoming corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Genahr, G.I. Letters to Rhenish Missionary Society. 20 Oct. 1891; 11 Dec. 1891; 11 July 1897; 16 July 1898; 22 July 1898; 1900; 9 Sept. 1904; 12 June 1908. Vereinigte Evangelische Mission Archives, Wuppertal. Gibson, J.C. Letter to ABS. 19 Dec. 1907. American Bible Society Archives, New York. GMC. Letters to Josiah Goddard. 29 June 1844, 18 July 1845. American Bap­ tist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. Goddard, Josiah. Letters to ABMU. 1 July 1847; 13 Oct. 1848; 15 Feb. 1849; 30 March 1850; 3 June 1850; 6 Sept. 1850; 4 May 1851. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. — . Letters to GMC. 25 Aug. 1841; Sept. 1844; 22 Nov. 1844. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge. — . Report to GMC. 24 October 1843. American Baptist Archives Center, American B网)tist Historical Society, Valley Forge. Goodrich, Chauncey. Letters to ABCFM. 20 Nov. 1890; 1 Aug. 1894. Ameri­ can Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence received, vol. 18. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University. — . Letters to ABCFM. 2 March 1901; 11 July 1901; 9 Dec. 1901; 13 Nov. 1903; 1 March 1905; 6 Nov. 1907; 17 Nov. 1908. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspon­ dence received, vol. 26. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University. — . Letter to ABCFM. 19 Jan. 1912. American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence received, vol. 34. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University.

374

B ib l io g r a p h y

— . Letter to G.H. Bondfield. 18 June 1918. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Graves, R.H. Autobiographical ms. of 26 Sept. 1908. Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention Archives, Richmond. — . Letter to ABS. 14 Feb. 1900. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to the secretaries of the ABS, BFBS, and NBSS. 26 July 1907. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . New Testament Proper Names, n.d. Foreign Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention Archives, Richmond. He Jinshan 何 進 善 . Letter to LMS. 16 Jan. 1841. China Malacca, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 5. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Hills, Margaret T. ABS Historical Essay #16, Part III-G. Text and Translation, 1831-1860, Languages o f Asia. American Bible Society Archives, New York. 1964. — . ABS Historical Essay 轉16, Part IV-G-3. Text and Translation, Languages o f China - 1861-1900. American Bible Society Archives, New York. 1965. — . ABS Historical Essay 裤16, Part V-G-IV. Text and Translation, Languages o f China - 1901-1930. American Bible Society Archives, New York. 1966. Hykes, John. Letters to ABS. 25 Nov. 1893; 10 Sept. 1895; 21 March 1896; 9 July 1896; 8 April 1899; 22 July 1899; 4 Aug. 1899; 20 Sept. 1899; 23 March 1900; 29 March 1900; 7 May 1900; 29 Aug. 1902; 25 May 1903; 3 July 1903; 27 Feb. 1905; 28 April 1905; 24 June 1905; 5 July 1905; 22 Nov. 1907; 28 July 1908; 12 May 1914; 16 Jan. 1920. American Bible So­ ciety Archives, New York. Hykes, John, Bondfield, G.H. Letter to ABS, BFBS and NBSS. 16 July 1908. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to R.E. Chambers. 16 July 1908. American Bible Society Archives, New York. John, Griffith. Letter to C.W. Mateer and J.W. Stevenson. 10 Feb. 1891. Central China, incoming corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Ar­ chives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to C.W. Mateer. 10 Feb. 1891. Central China, incoming corresp.， box 7. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 2 June, 1890; 8 July 1890; 11 Oct. 1890; 11 May 1891. Central China, incoming corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Ar­ chives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.

B ib l io g r a p h y

375

Lay, G.T. Letters to BFBS. 10 Oct. 1836; 14 Dec. 1836. South China and Ul­ tra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Legge, James. Letter to LMS. 12 Jan. 1841. China Malacca, incoming cor­ resp., box 3, folder 5. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and Aftican Studies, London. Lewis, Spencer. Letters to G.H. Bondfield. 2 April 1918; 7 May 1918. Ameri­ can Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Telegram to G.H. Bondfield. 11 June 1918. American Bible Society Ar­ chives, New York. LMS. Letter to Griffith John. 12 Sept. 1890. East Outgoing Letters: China, box 14. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, London. — . Letter to John Chalmers. 19 Dec. 1890. East Outgoing Letters: China, box 14. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Lord, E.C. Letter to ABMU. 25 March 1856; 8 Oct. 1858; 25 Oct. 1859; 1887. American Baptist Archives Center, American Baptist Historical Soci­ ety, Valley Forge. Marshman, Joshua. Letter to BMS. 20 Aug. 1806; 30 March 1810; 9 Jan. 1817. Angus Library, Regent’s Park College, Oxford. Martin, W.A.P. Letters to APM. 12 April 1864; 8 Aug. 1864. Board of For­ eign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries’ Files, China Mis­ sion, 1837-1957, microfilm reel #191a, Presbyterian Office of History. Philadelphia. Mateer, C.W. Letter to ABS. 28 Nov. 1906. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to ABS, BFBS, and NBSS. 3 June 1898. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to APM. 6 Aug. 1890; 14 Jan. 1899; 27 Sept. 1899. Board of For­ eign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries’ Files, China Mis­ sion, 1837-1957, microfilm reel 3 191a, Presbyterian Office of History. Philadelphia. — . Letters to APM. 18 June 1901; 15 Dec. 1901. Board of Foreign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries’ Files, China Mission, 1837-1957, Presbyterian Office of History. Philadelphia. — . Letter to G.H. Bondfield and J. Hykes. 17 Feb. 1900. American Bible Society Archives, New York.

376

B ib l io g r a p h y

— . Letter to Griffith Jcrfm. 20 Nov. 1890. Central China, incoming corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Medhurst, Walter H. Letters to LMS. 24 Aug. 1835; 1 Nov. 1835; 9 Jan. 1836. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Stud­ ies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 30 June 1849; 8 Oct. 1849; 11 May 1850. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 9 Sept. 1851; 24 Nov. 1852. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1，folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 29 Dec. 1853; *11 Oct. 1854. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1，folder 4. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. 一 . Letter to LMS. 6 Sept. 1855. Central China, incoming corresp., box 2,

folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, London. Medhurst, W.H., Stronach, J. Letter to local committee of LMS in Shanghai. 11 Dec. 1847. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, Lon­ don. Medhurst, W. H., Stronach, J., Milne, W. Letters to LMS. 13 March 1851; 15 July 1851. Central China, incoming corresp., box 1，folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Minutes o f Editorial Sub-Committee. 25 Nov. 1836. Archives of the BFBS, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge. Minutes o f Sub-Committee for General Purposes. 16 Sept. 1836. Archives of the BFBS, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge. Morrison, John Robert. Letter to BFBS. 25 July 1837. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 15 Feb. 1835; 15 May 1836. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 31 July 1837. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.

B ib l io g r a p h y

377

Morrison, Robert. Letter to BFBS. 28 Jan. 1814. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 27 Dec. 1805; 7 May 1806; 1 April 1809; 14 Dec. 1809. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, Lon­ don. — . Letter to LMS. 9 March 1811. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 3, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letters to LMS. 20 Sept. 1813; 17 Dec. 1814. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 3. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 11 Oct. 1815. South China and Ultra Ganges, incoming corresp., box 1, folder 4. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Muirtiead, William. Letter to LMS. 30 April 1856. Central China, incoming corresp., box 2, folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. 一 . Letters to LMS. 10 May 1890; 16 May 1890; 20 June 1890. Central

China, incoming corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Nevius, J.L. Letter to APM. 28 Jan. 1893. Board of Foreign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries’ Files, China Mission, 1837-1957, Pres­ byterian Office of History. Philadelphia. Nida, Eugene A. Letter to BFBS. 20 March 1959. Archives of the BFBS, Cambridge University Library, Cambridge. Owen, George. Letter to LMS. 10 Aug. 1891. North China, incoming cor­ resp., box 7, folder 6. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 13 Aug. 1896. North China, incoming corresp., box 10, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afirican Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 23 Dec. 1898. North China, incoming corresp., box 10, folder 6. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 8 Feb. 1902. North China, incoming corresp., box 14. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Stud­ ies, London.

378

B ib l io g r a p h y

Pearce, T.W. Letter to LMS. 14 March 1902. South China, incoming corresp., box 15. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afri­ can Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 28 April 1908. South China, incoming corresp., box 17. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 19 June 1912. South China, incoming corresp., box 18b. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and Afiican Stud­ ies, London. Price, B.F . Report on Visit to Far East by Rev. B.F. Price, 22nd August to 16th September, 1965. Archives of the BFBS, Cambridge University Li­ brary, Cambridge. Reports o f Peking Station 1911; 1917/18; 1918. Board of Foreign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries' Files, China Mission, 1837-1957, Presbyterian Office of History. Philadel|rfiia. Report of Tungchow (Shandong) 1894. Board of Foreign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries’ Files, China Mission, 1837-1957, Pres­ byterian Office of History. Philadelphia. Rhodes, Erroll. ABS Historical Essay 裤16, Part VI-G. Text and Translation, Asian Languages 1931-1966. American Bible Society Archives, New York. 1970. Schaub, Martin. Letter to Basel Mission. 28 Sep. 1891; 21 Dec. 1891; 16 April 1892; 27 Dec. 1899. Basel Mission Archives, Basel. Schereschewsky, S.I.J. Letter to ABS. 26 May 1892. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Sheffield, D.Z. Letters to ABCFM. 1 Oct. 1891; 6 Feb. 1892; 27 Aug. 1892; 25 Oct. 1898; 15 Dec. 1898. American Board of Commissioners for For­ eign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence received, vol. 21. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University. — . Letter to ABCFM. 6 Jan. 1900; 20 Jan. 1900; 27 Sept. 1900; 14 Dec. 1900; 7 April 1901; 19 July 1905; 12 Jan. 1908. American Board of Com­ missioners for Foreign Missions Papers. ABC 16.3.12, Correspondence re­ ceived, vol. 29. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard Univer­ sity. — . Letter to ABS. 18 Nov. 1907. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . Letter to G.H. Bondfield. 19 April 1905. American Bible Society Ar­ chives, New York.

B ib l io g r a p h y

379

Stevenson, J.W. Letter to Griffith John. 29 Dec. 1890. Central China, incom­ ing corresp., box 7. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and African Studies, London. Stronach, A., Young, W. Letter to BFBS. 29 July 1852. South China (Fukien), incoming corresp., box 1, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. — . Letter to LMS. 11 Jan. 1845. South China (Fukien), incoming corresp., box 1, folder 1. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Oriental and African Studies, London. Stronach, J. Letter to LMS. Oct. 1854. South China (Fukien), incoming cor­ resp., box 1, folder 2. Council for World Mission Archives, School of Ori­ ental and African Studies, London. Sun Xiaoping f系/ 】 、 平 . ”Dao fur Xdyoq—ein evangeliumsgemaAes Aquivalent. Eine Untersuchung der Inkulturationsprobleme des Christentums bei der Bibeliibersetzung in China am Beispiel der Ubersetzung des Logos-Begriffs im Johannes-Prolog in der chinesischen Unionsiibersetzung (1890-1919).** Dis­ sertation, Universitat Hamburg, 1996. Sydenstricker, Absalom. Principles of Procedure in the Committee, ms. 1908a. American Bible Society Archives, New York. — . ms. 1908b. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Wherry, John. Personal Reports 1912/13; 1913/14; 1915/16\ 1917; 1918. Board of Foreign Missions Records (PCUSA), Records, Secretaries* Files, China Mission, 1837-1957, Presbyterian Office of History. Philadelphia. Wright, W.，Slowan, W.J. Letter to E.W. Gilman. 20 Jan. 1888. American Bible Society Archives, New York. Zetzsche, Jost. “Chinesische Bibeliibersetzungen: ein Vergleich." M.A. thesis, Universitat Hamburg, 1993.

16.2. Published Material Abel-R6musat, J.P. “Sur les traductions de la Bible.” Milanges Asiatiques. 1st vol. Ed. by J.P. Abel-R6musat. Paris: Librairie Orientale de DondeyDupr6, 1825. 1-26. Aleni, Giulio. Tianzhu jiangsheng chuxiang jie 天主降生出像解 . Peking, 1637. Allgemeine Missions-Zeiischrift 9 (1882). American Bible Society: Annual Report 1 (1816). American Bible Society: Bible Society Record 1 (1855).

380

B ib l io g r a p h y

Annual Report o f Managers o f the Baptist General Convention for Foreign Mis­ sions 39 (1853). Baldwin, C.C. 14Union Standard Version of the Bible in Chinese." Chinese Re­ corder 11 (1880): 465-474. 一 . “Notes on the Revision of the Mandarin New Testament." Chinese Re­

corder 38 (1907): 22-31, 91-101. Bailer, F.W. “The Rev. C.W. Mateer, D.D.: An Appreciation." Chinese Re­ corder 39 (1908): 630-633. — . “The Revised Mandarin Bible (Union Version), China’s Millions ns 27 (1919): 57-59. Baptist Missionary Magazine 24 (1844); 54 (1874). The Baptist Repository and Missionary Observer 31 (1852). Bays, Daniel H. “Christian Tracts: The Two Friends." Christianity in China, Early Protestant Missionary Writings. Ed. by Suzanne W. Barnett and John K. Fairbank. Cambridge (Mass.)：Harvard University Press, 1985. 19-34. — . “The Growth of Independent Christianity in China, 1900-1937." Christi­ anity in China: From the Eigteenth Century to the Present. Ed. by Daniel H. Bays. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996. 306-316. Beckmann, Johannes. MNeuerscheinungen zur chinesischen Missionsgeschichte, 1945-1955." Monumenta Serica 15 (1956): 378-462. — . MDie Heilige Schrift in den katholischen Missionen: Ein Riickblick." Neue Zeitschrift JUr Missionswissenschaft 21 (1965): 45-60. Bible Society Monthly Reporter 45 (1897). The Bible Translator 11 (1960). Blodget, Henry. “The Mandarin Bible Rendered into Easy Wenli.” Chinese Recorder 16 (1885): 387-388. Boardman, Eugene P. Christian Influence Upon the Ideology o f the Taiping Rebellion, 1851-1864. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952. Bolton, Wm. uRecollections of Dr. Griffith John.” The Chronicle o f the Lon­ don Missionary Society ns 14 (1905): 109-111. Bondfield, G.H. “Bible Translation—Some Supplementary Problems: Titlepages, Names of Separate Books, and Proper Names.” Chinese Recorder 40 (1909): 687-692. — . “The Bible in China, a List of Versions in Wenli, Easy Wenli, and Manda­ rin, with Notes." China Mission Year Book 6 (1915): 466-473. Bondfield, G.H” Hykes, J.R., Annand, A.S. Proposed "Union" Terms for God and Spirit. Shanghai: n.p” 1905.

B ib l io g r a p h y

Boone, William J. “An Essay and ©£6eration with Dangdai shengjing above) with a special emj^iasis on the employment of terminology and simplified characters used in mainland China Basis text: Living Bible (1971) Literature: *Ma 1982; Prefaces; *Wu 1975; Zhou 1981, 52; Loh 1995, 65 XVUI. Xiandal zhongwen yiben 現代中文譯本 Today’s Chinese Version Translator: Moses Hsii (Xu Mushi) 許牧 0±，I-Jin Loh (Luo Weiren) 路維 仁 ，Zhou Lianhua 周聯華 ，Evelyn Chiao (Jiao M ing) 焦明 ，and Martin Wang (Wang Chengzhang)卫成 $ Date of Publication: 1980 (single editions of the Gospels: 1973 and 1974; NT: 1975; NT with Psalms: 1976; rev. ed. 1984) Publishing House: United Bible Societies Principle of Translation: uFunctional equivalence" translation from Today's English Version5 with reference and correction according to the Greek and Hebrew texts Basis text: Today's English Version (3rd ed. 1971); AT: Biblia Hebraica by Kittel (ed.) (3rd ed. 1952); NT: Greek text of the UBS (2nd ed. 1968; 3rd ed. 1975) Literature: Cai in The New Chinese Bible Centre Bulletin 8 (1980), 9; Chen 1981; Fang 1975; *Li 1979; *Li 1982; *Lu 1981; Luo in Xu 1983, III-VII; *Ma 1982; Prefaces of NT and Bible editions; Strandenaes 1987, 121-141; Wang 1981; Wu 1993, 92-94; *Xu 1981; Xu 1983, 191-259; Zhao 1993, 96-118; Loh 1995, 65

5

Seech. 14.3.3.

A p p e n d ic e s

417

XIX. Restoration Version Translator: Committee under Li Shanfu 李山甫 Date of Publication: 1987 Publishing House: Gospel Bookroom, Taibei Principle of Translation: Translation which keeps the style of the Union Version but incorporates new terminology Basis text: no information given Literature: Loh 1995, 66 XX. Shengjing xinyiben 聖 經 新 譯 本 [Bible: a New Translation] Translator: Committee of more than 30 Chinese translators (complete list in New Chinese Bible Centre Bulletin 11); general secretary: Rong Baoluo 容保羅 Date of Publication: 1992 (John: 1973 (rev. ed. 1974); NT: 1976) Publishing House: Tiandao shulou 天道咨樓，Hong Kong Principle of Translation: “Formal equivalence" translation from the Greek and Hebrew texts into modem Chinese with reference to the Man­ darin Union Version Basis text: AT: Biblia Hebrcuca Stuttgartensia (1977); NT: Greek text of the United Bible Societies (1. ed. 1966); Union Version (1919) Literature: *Fang 1976; Liu *1975; *1978a; 1979b; Ma 1982; New Chi­ nese Bible Centre 1977; 1986, 42-45; New Chinese Bible Centre Bulletin 1-11; Special Edition 1987; Preface in NT; Rong 1975; 1976; Ye 1977/78; *Zhang 1979; Zhao 1993, 120-144; *Zhou 1990, 52-53

17.3.2. Protestant Translations in Preparation Chinese New International Version Translator: Committee of 12 Chinese translators (complete list in booklet from International Bible Society, H.K.)；president: Zhang Muai 張慕靖；chairman for New Testament translation: Zhu Yonghua 格永華；chairman for Old Testament translation: Zhou Yongjian 周永健

Date of Publication: Before 2000 (by May 1995 first drafts of the New Testament books of Mark, Luke, John, and Acts, as well as five Old Testament books completed) Publishing House: International Bible Society (H.K.)

418

A p p e n d ic e s

Principle of Translation: According to the priocii^es of the New Inter­ national Version (1978), a translation of the original texts into a highly comprehensible modern Mandarin Basis text: Greek and Hebrew text Literature: *Intemational Bible Society (H.K.), n.d.; •International Bible Society 1995

17.3.3. Ecumenical Translations in Preparation I. Gongtong yiben 共同譯本 Pnterconfessknial Translation】 Translator: Committee of Catholic and Protestant translators from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and mainland China; chairman: Zhou Lianhua 周聯華 ; secretary: Fang Zhirong 房忐榮 Date of Publication: John: 1990 (Luke {Today’s Chinese Version edition with interconfessional transliterations): 1986) Publishing House: Bible Society in the Republic of China Principle of Translation: Interconfessional translation of the original texts into modem Mandarin with special em沖asis on fidelity and com­ prehensibility Basis text: AT: Biblia Hebraica (3rd ed. 1952); NT: Greek text of ttie UBS (3rd ed. 1975) Literature: .Chinese Bible Revison 1968; Fang *1986; *1987; 1988; ♦Minutes of committee meetings 1988; Preface; Zhao 1993, BO138

17.3.4. C atholk Chinese Bible Translations: Published Attempts As described in chapter 2, the pre-18th-century history of Catholic Bible translations, especially the translation of Basset, had a definite influence on the history of early Protestant translations, and thus to some degree on the Union Version. Later Cattiolic activities had few if any points of contact, widi the exception of very recent interconfessional activities for the Today's Chinese Version and die ecumenical version (see above). Following is a list of the Catholic Bible translations which, in contrast to the first Catholic attempts, have for the greatest part been published.

A p p e n d ic e s

419

I. Sishl shengjing yizhu 四史聖經譯註 [Four Gospels, Translated and Commented] Translator: J.J.F. Dejean Date of Publication: 1893 (Matthew: 1892; Mark, Luke, John [in separate editions]: 1893) Publishing House: Nazareth, Hong Kong Principle of Translation: no information given (translation into classical Chinese) Basis text: Vulgate Literature: *Li 1968, 43; *Streit/Dindinger 1960, 2105-133; Willeke 1960, 289 II. Xii^jing yiyi 新 經 譯 義 [New Testament Translation] Translator: (Laurentius) Li Wenyu 李問漁 Date of Publication: 1907 (Gospels: 1896; Acts: 1905) Publishing House: Tushanwan cimutang 土 山 灣 慈 母堂 ，Shanghai Principle of Translation: no information given (translation into classical Chinese) Basis text: Vulgate Literature: Preface; Willeke I960, 289-290 III. Xii^jing quai^ji 新 經 全 集 [New Testament] Translator: (Joseph) Xiao Jingshan 蕭靜山 Date of Publication: 1922 (Gospels: 1918); rev. ed. 1948, 1956 Publishing House: Zhili dongnan Yesuhui uk•綠束南耶拆會 ，Weixian (rev. ed.: Guangqi 光啓 , Taizhong) Principle of Translation: Translation into Mandarin with emphasis on fidelity and comprehensibility Basis text: Vulgate (revision according to (not specified) Greek text) Literature: *Allegra 1947, 286; Preface; Studium Biblicum 1981, 124-125; Willeke I960, 290 IV. Sheng Baolu shuhan bing shuwei zongtu handu 聖保祿軎翰並數位宗徒涵牘

[Epistles of St. Paul and other Apostles] Translator: M.L.F. Aubazac and Feng Jialu 瑪 嘉 祿 Date of Publication: 1927 (Pauline epistles: 1915) Publishing House: Nazareth, Hong Kong Principle of Translation: no information given (translation into classical Chinese) Basis text: Vulgate Literature: Preface; Streit/Dindinger 1959, 394; Studium Biblicum 1981, 125

420

A p p e n d ic e s

V. Xiqjing gonghan yu moshilu 新經公涵與默示錄 [New Testament: Epistles and Revdatioa] Translator: Pierre Bousquet Date of Publication: 1923 Publishing House: Nazareth, Hong Kong Principle of Translation: Translation into Mandarin with emphasis on style and fidelity Basis text: Vulgate Literature: Willeke 1960, 290 VI. Jiushi ftiyin 救 福 音 [World~Saving Gospeb] Translator: Ma Xiangbo 馬相伯 Date of Publication: 1949 (completed in 1937) Publishing House: Commercial Press, Shanghai Principle of Translation: Translation into classical Chinese with emphasis on style Basis text: Latin text of Glaire (1904) Literature: Preface; Willeke 1960, 291; Zhu 1941, 72 VII. Sbengyong yiyi chugao 聖詠譯荠初搞 [First Draft of • Translation of the Psalms] Translator: (John) Wu Jingxiong 吳經熊 (corrected by Jiang Jieshi 蔣介世，e.g. Chiang Kai-shek) Date of Publication: 1946 (rev. ed. 1975) Publishing House: Commercial Press, Shanghai (rev. ed. Commercial Press, Taiwan) Principle of Translation: Metrical translatkm into classical Chinese with special emphasis on style Basis text: French translation by Crampon (1905) and others Literature: Cheng 1947, 26-27; *Fang 1947; *Shih 1952, 122-123; Studium Biblicum 1981, 126; Willeke 1960, 291; *Wu 1951, 285-324; *So VIII. Fuyin—flu: zongtu dashi ji 福 音 。附 ：宗徒大事記 [Gospels. Added: Acts of the Aposteb] Translator: (John) Wu Jingxiong 吳經熊 (corrected by Jiang Jieshi 蔣介世，e.g., Chiang Kai-shek) Date of Publication: 1949 Publishing House: Gongjiao zhenli xuehui 公教眞理學會 ，Hong Kong Principle of Translation: Partly metrical translation into classical Chinese with special emphasis on style Basis text: several English and French translations Literature: Studium Biblicum 1981, 126; Willeke 1960, 291; *Wu 1951, 285-324

A p p e n d ic e s

421

IX. Xl^jing quanshu 新 經 全 咨 (New Testament] Translator: G. Litvanyi (chairman), R. Archen, E. 舜華

Date of Publication: 1949 (Gospels [translated by Xiao]: 1940; John [trans­ lated by Litvanyi]: 1948; Acts and Romans [revised by Litvanyi]: 1955) Publishing House: Duli 獨力 ，Peking Principle of Translation: Translation into Mandarin with emj^uisis on style rather than fidelity Basis text: Greek text (not specified) Literature: Studium Biblicum 1981, 125; Willeke 1960, 293-294 X. Xlnyl ftiyin chugao 新譯福音初稿 [First Draft of a New Translation of the Gktspeb] Translator: Shanghai xuhui zongxiuyuan 上海徐匯總修院 Date of Publication: 1953 Publishing House: Tushanwan yinshuguan 土山灣印害館 ，Shanghai Principle of Translation: Translation into Mandarin with em沖asis on comprehensibilty and fidelity Basis text: Greek text (not specified) Literature: *Li 1968, 45; Preface XL Shengjing 聖 經 [Bible] Translator: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum (Sigao shengjing xuehiu 思高聖經學會 ) under the leadership of G.M. Allegra Date of Publication: 1961 (Psalms: 1946; Wisdom Books (Job-Song of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom of Solomon): 1947; Pentateuch: 1948; Historical Books I (Joshua-Kings): 1949; Historical Books II (1 and 2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras, Nehemiah, Esther, Tobit, Ju­ dith, 1 and 2 Maccabees): 1950; Isaiah: 1951; Jeremiah-Ezekiel: 1952; Daniel-Malachi: 1954; Gospels: 1957; Acts and Pauline Epistles: 1959; Catholic Epistles-Revelation: 1961; Revised onevolume Bible edition: 1968) Publishing House: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Hong Kong (until 1948 Fangjitang 方濟堂，Peking) Principle of Translation: Translation into Mandarin with special emphasis on fidelity and comprehensibiliy Basis Text: AT: Masoretic text, but also several other Hebrew editions, as well as the Septuaguinta, Vulgate, and others; NT: especially Merk (7th ed. 1951), but also von Soden, Nestle, Vogels, and Bover, for the revised edition Greek text of the United Bible Societies (1. ed. 1966)

422

APPENDICES

Literature (selected): *AIlegra 1987; *Duosheng 1975; *Fang 1946; *Fang 1969; *Gandolfi 1984; *Jiang 1963; *Kramers 1964, 32-33; Pref­ aces; *Shengjing shuangyuekan 1985; *1989; Strandenaes 1987, 100-121; *Willeke 1959; Zhao 1993, 66-90 XU. Xi^Jing qiuu^i xinyiben 新經全集新譯本 [New Translation of the New Testament] Translator: E. Petit and Song Ande 宋安得 Date of Publication: 1969 (Gospels and Acts: 1968) Publishing House: Guangqi 光啓 , Taizhong Principle of Translation: no information given (Mandarin translation) Basis text: no information given Literature: mentioned in Studium Biblicum 1981, 127; Yang 1991, 385 XIII. Xii^Jing 新 經 [New Testemeni Translator: Sheshan xiuyuan 佘山 佘山修院 Date of Publication: 1994 (Gospels: 1985; Acts: 1991; Pauline Epistles: 1992; other Epistles and Revelation: 1993) Publishing House: Guangqi 光啓 ，Shanghai Principle of Translation: no information given (Mandarin translation) Basis text: La Bible de Jerusalem (published 1956); Xinyi fuyin chugao (see No. X above); other Chinese Bible translations Literature: *Malek 1995, 5; Prefaces

17.3.5. Additional BibUografrfiy of Works Not Listed in General Blbllogni|rfiy Allegra, Gabriel M. “La version chinoise de la Sainte Bible.” Neue Zeitschrifi fUr Missionswissertschaft 3 (1947): 286-289. 一 [Lei Yongming 雷永明】. Huiyi lu 回億錄 . Hong Kong: Studium Biblicum Franciscanum思高聖經學會，1987.

Camps, Amulf, O.F.M. **Father Gabriele M. AUegra, O.F.M. (1907-1976) and the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum: The First Complete Chinese Catholic Translation of the Bible." Ed. by Irene Eber, Sze-kar Wan, and Knut Waif in collaboration with Roman Malek, Bible in Modem China. The Literary and Intellectual Impact. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series XLIII (Sankt Augustin - Nettetal: Steyler Verlag 1999): 55-76 Chen, Marcus, O.F.M. “Studium Biblicum Franciscanum und die Vereinigte Chinesische Katholische Bibelfoderation." Ed. by Roman Malek, Hong-

A p p e n d ic e s

423

kong. Kirche und Gesellschqft im Obergang. Materialien und Dokumente (Sankt Augustin - Nettetal: Steyler Verlag 1997): 191-204. 44Chinese Bible Revision." China Notes 4.4 (1968): 11. Duosheng 鋒聲 13.8 (1975). (commemorative issue on the 30th anniversary of the foundation of the Studium Biblicum) Fang Hao 方豪 . “Shengyongji” 聖詠集 . Shangzhi bianyiguan guankan 上智編 譯館館刊 1 (1946): 63-66. 一 • “Wu Desheng xiansheng fanyi shengjing de jin g g u o " 吳徳生先生翻 譯聖經的經過 . Shangzhi bianyiguan guankan 上 智 編 譯 館 館 刊 2 (1947):

19-26. Fang Zhirong 房忐榮 . “Shengjing: sigao shengjing xuehui yishi” 聖 經 ：思高 聖經學會憶釋 . Furen daxue shenxue lu n ji 輔 仁 大 學 神 學 論 集 2 (1969): 267-274. 一 . “Xinyue quanshu—xinyiben" 新約全咨一新譯本 . Furen daxue shenxue lu n ji輔仁大學神學論集 30 (1976): 593-597.

— . “Heyi shengjing huiyi zai Xianggang juxing" 合一聖經會議在香港舉行 • Tripod 35 (1986): 27. — . Tianzhujiao yu Jidujiao shengjing de yitong (zaiban xindingben)天主教 與基督教的異同 (冉版修訂本 ) . Tainan: Wendao聞道，1987. Gandolfi, Domenico. For China ... Another Jerome, the Life and Work o f Fa­ ther Gabriele Allegra. New York: Franciscan Province of the Immaculate Conception, 1984. International Bible Society (H.K.) Ltd. Yixiang chaoyue benshiji de shuling gongcheng: yijing jihua 一項超越本 li•紀 的 屬 靈 工 程 ：譯經計劃 . Hong Kong: International Bible Society (H.K.), n.d. International Bible Society. Global Impact: China. May 1995. Jiang Fuzong 蔣復總 . “Zhongguo yijing shiye“ 中國譯經事業 . Hengyi yuekan 恆毅月刊 30.8 (1963): 48-49. Kramers, Robert P. [Jia Baoluo 質保羅 ] . "Zuijin zhi zhongwen shengjing yiben”最近之中文聖經譯本 . Shengjing hanyi lunw enji聖經漢譯論文集 . Ed. Jia Baoluo 質 保 羅 [Robert P. Kramers]. Hong Kong: Jidujiao fuqiao 膀服斃徊， 1964. 29-37. Li Dawei 李大衛 . “‘Jiantao Xiandai zhongwen shengjing yiben’ duhou gan” “ 檢討 € 代中文聖經譯本 ” 讀後感 . Shengming z a z h i 生 命 雜 忐 277 (1982): 8-11.

424

APPENDICES

Li Shaokun 李紹良 . Shengjing gailun 聖經概論 . Hong Kong: Xianggang gongjiao zhenli xuehui 香 港 公 教 理 學 會 ，1968. Li Shiyuan 李淀源 • “Ping Meiguo shengjing gonghui chuban: 'Xiandai zhongwen yiben xinyue quanshu*: zhiyi, yiyi he fanyi" 評美國聖經公會出版： “ 現代中文譯本新約全咨 ” ：也 譯 ，意譯和翮譯 . J in g fe n g 景 風 59 (1979): 36*41. Liu Yiling 劉興凌 . “Cong zhongwen jiaodu kan Yuehan fuyin xinyiben" 從中 文角度看約翰福音新譯本 . 1975. Yijing luncong 譯經論叢 . Ed. Liu Yiling 劉與凌 . Hong Kong: Fuyin wenxuan 福音文宣，1979. 45-80. — . “Lun yijing da Ye Qing** 論譯經答葉青 • Shengming zazhi 生命雜忐 230 (1978a): 11-13; 231 (1978a): 14-19. Lu Jia 鹿加 . “Xiandai zhongwen yiben shengjing chuban" 現代中文譯本聖 經出版 . Shangdi de ai 上 帝 的 Ed. Xiao Min 小民 . Taibei: Bible Soci­ ety in the Republic of China, 1981. 137-143. Ma Kezheng 馬克正 . “Shiping zhongwen shengjing xinyiben" 試評中文聖經 新譯本 . Zhongguo y“ jiaohui 中國與教會 21 (1982): 12-15. Malek, Roman. MNeuiibersetzung des Neuen Testaments." China heute (St. Augustin) 14 (1995): 5. Minutes of Committee Meetings “聖經合譯姿員會第 一 （二 ，二 ，四 ）次會 議 記 錄 Furen daxue shenxue lunji 輔仁大學神學論集 75 (1988): 16, 26, 34, 44, 94, 132, 142; 78 (1988): 496, 540, 552. Shengjing shuangyuekan 聖經雙月刊 9.4 (1985); 13.1 (1989) [special editions on Bible translation]. Shih, Paul K.T. From Confucius to Christ. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1952. So, Francis. “Wu Ching-hsiung's Chinese Translation of Images of the Most High in the Psalms." Ed. by Irene Eber, Sze-kar Wan, and Knut Waif (eds.) in collaboration with Roman Malek, Bible in Modem China. The Lit­ erary and Intellectual Impact. Monumenta Serica Monograph Series xuil (Sankt Augustin - Nettetal: Steyler Verlag 1999): 321-350. Standaert, Nicolas. “The Bible in Early Seventeenth-Century China.” Ibid. 3154. Streit, Robert, Dindinger, Johannes. Bibliotheca Missionum. Bd. 14, Zweiter Teil: Ounesische Missionsliteratur 1910-1950. Roma: Herder, 1960. Wang Zhiyou 工之友 . -Pinglun 'Xiandai zhongwen yiben’ shengjing” 評 論 “ 現代中文譯本， ” 聚經 . Shengming za zh i生 命 雜 忐 275 (1982): 1719.

A p p e n d ic e s

425

Willeke, Bemward. "Eine neue Ubersetzung des Neuen Testamentes ins Chi­ nesische. ” Zeitschrifi JUr Missionswissenschaft und Religionswissenschafi 43 (1959): 120-123. Wu Shengwu吳繩武 . u,Dangdai fuyin* shuping" “ 當 代 福 音 ” 舌評 _ Jingfeng 景風 45 (1975): 36-39. Wu, John C.H. (Wu Jingxiong 吳經熊) . Beyond East and West. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1951. Xu Qiantai 許乾泰 . “Lingjie yao wen” 靈 界 要聞 . Shengming zazhi 生命雜忐 267 (1981): 13-15. Zhang Jinshou 張金森 . “Kandao Lu yi xinyue chugao hou” 看到呂譯新約初 稿後 . Shangzhi bianyiguan guankan 上智編譯館館刊 1 (1946): 22-25. Zhang Lisheng 張力生 • “Yijing guanjian" 譯經管見 . Yijing luncong 譯經論 叢 . Ed. by Liu Yiling _ 興凌 . Hong Kong: Fuyin wenxuan 福音文宣， 1979. 88-90. Zhou Tianhe 周天和 . Xinyue yanjiu zhinan (zengdingben) 新約硏究指南 (增吾了本) . Hong Kong: Chung Chi College, 1990.

INDEX In the index, Chinese transcriptions (such as shangdi), titles of works (such as Union Version), and q)ecific terms of particular relevance to die translators (such as God) are written in italics. The arabic numerals refer to the pages in the volume; the numerals after n (note) refer to the footnote number.

ABCFM, see American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions ABS, see American Bible Society Acts 2:1, 131n26 2:2, 131n26 2:6, 344n51 8:26, 340n36 22:6, 340n36 19:27, 356nll5 Acts, Protestant Chinese translation of, see Gaillard's translation, Poteat’s translation Aiken, Edwin E., 315, 317n79, 318, 320-321, 329nll8 Allan, C. Wilfred, 293, 316-318, 320, 329nll8, 345 Allegra, Gabriel M.，27, 421 Allen, Y.L., 202 chairman of Union Version executive commit ，202n35 aluohe, see God ambiguities in source text, 165-167, 226-227 American and Foreign Bible Society, 118 American Bible Society, 59 and Burdon/Blodget, 176

and G. Jdm, 175 and Peking Version, 172 power struggle witii other Bible societies, 368 stand in Term Question, 86 American Bible Union, 118 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 44, 61 American Standard Version, 275, 305, 308-309, 336nl8, 337-338, 357, 369 influence on Union Version, 369 angel, 134, 245n97; see also messenger Anglo-Chinese College, 41n89, 128n9 Archen, R., 421 Archibald, John, 163, 164n23, 195, 197, 197n20, 203, 285n2, 292 Armenian Bible, 46 Ashmore, William, 201, 292 Asseng, Friedrich Wilhelm, see Feng Yasheng Aubazac, M丄.F., 419 authorized version, Union Version as, 335-336, 344345, 369 Authorized Version, 38, 152, 167, 200, 215, 235, 333, 336, 357

428

BaJin, 334nl3 baihua, 21n5, 313, 332-333; see also Mandarin Baiyu jing, 333 Baldwin, Caleb C., 188n2, 212, 214 Baldwin, S i . , 107 Ball, Dyer, 78 Bailer, Frederick W., 33n55, 202, 217-219, 221, 263-264, 266, 267-268, 270*271，278, 293, 316-323, 328, 329nll8 Baptist affiliation, 310 ccmcept of Mandarin, 266 conflict with Sydenstricker, 309311 dmninance of committee work, 309-311 dominating personality, 367 knowledge of Hebrew, 309-311 siqiport by China Inland Mission, 310 Bailer’s translation of Psalms, 31Qn51, 406, 408 baptism, 37, 54-56, 79, 111, 185, 201, 224, 238, 366 by Taiping rebels, 73 Catholic translation of, S4nl38 in J^)anese, 55 “in” or “with” water, 237, 245, 275 jin, 54-56, 356 jinxi, 73 Nestorian translation of, 54nl38 Orthodox translation of, 134 sa, 73n80 with the addition of li, 54nl42, 105nl31 xi, 54-56, 129, 134 Zfum , 54-56, 245 Baptist Bible Translation Society, U8n3S

In d e x

Baptist editkms of Union Version, 238-240, 355-356 Press, 355 Baptists, and the Term Question, 90 influence on Taiping rebels, 73n80 resignatirai from Delegates' Version committee, 81 rivalry with odier denominations, 53-56, 185 separate translation activities, 111-122

Barber, W.T.A., 197n21 Barclay, T” 197n20 ] Basset, Jean, 28 Basset's New Testament translation, 28-32, 185, 363 influence on Marshman/Lassar's translation, 49-51 influence on Morrison/Milne's translation, 35-36, 51 beginning, 50, 149n62, 177, 255 Bergen, P.D., 292 Beza, T. (version of New Testament), 91 BFBS, see British and Foreign Bible Society Bible societies, 367-368 and Baptist versions of Union Version, 238-240 and Baptists, 368 and Term Question, 368 changing position of, 368 competition among, 172-173 interdependence widi missionaries, 368 members of Union Version Old Testament executive committees, 292 power struggle among, 368

In d e x

representation at 1907 conference, 285 role in China, 188 support of Union Version, 203205, 223, 268, 316-317, 368 translations into Lower Classical, 162-163 Bible Society Era, 367 Bible Society in the Republic of China, 103, 347n65 Bible Treasury New Testament, 56nl46, 90n56, 337n24, 412 Bible, 346n64 Bible, Protestant Chinese translation of, see Bridgman/Culbertson's translation, Chinese New International Version, Dangdai Shengjing, Dean's translation, Delegates' Version/London Mission Version, Gongtong Yiben, Lii Zhenzhong’s translation, Mandarin Union Version, Marshman/Lassar's translation, Medhurst/CKitzlaff/ Bridgman’s translation, Morrison/Milne's translation, Schereschewsky's translation of the Classical, Schereschewsky's translation of the Mandarin, Shengjing xinyiben, Today's Chinese Version, Wenli Union Version Bing Xin, 334nl3 Blodget, Henry, 107, 145-147, 150n68, 152, 174-178, 181， 194, 197n20, 197n21, 199, 205, 207n53, 208, 216, 218, 227nl6, 228, 236n54, 286, 329nll8 Bloomfield, S.T. (edition of Greek text), 78nl0

429

Bondfield, G.H., 129, 238n66, 246, 292, 316-317, 368, 411 Book o f Common Prayer translation by Schereschewsky and Burdon, 146, 169 Boone, William Jones, 81, 87, 91, 98-99, 108-109, 141nl6 si^yporter of shangdi, 82n33 Bousquet, Pierre, 419 Boxer prising, 265 Bramfitt, Thomas, 217, 219, 224, 255-256, 267, 329nll8 Bridgman, Elijah C., 61,78, 79nl2, 81, 86, 91, 98, 99, 104-108 death of, 106 role in Medhurst/Giitzlaff/ Bridgman version, 61-62 si^port for shen, 82 translations into Mandarin, 141 Bridgman/Culbertson’s Bible translation, 101, 104-108, 118119, 132, 134, 154nl01, 169, 165-166, 180nl03, 181, 187, 199, 405, 407 Chinese assistants, 366 public receptkm, 106-107 publication by ABS, 106 revision attempts, 107 revision of the Delegates ’ Version New Testament, 105106 British and Foreign Bible Society, 28, 63, 65, 185 and G. John, 170-174 early attempts towards a union version, 170-174 estimation of Moniscm above Marshman, 53-54 estimation of Morrison above Medhurst, 65-66 power struggle with other Bible societies, 368

430

stand in Term Question, 86 support of a higher literary style in Bible translation, 268 support of GiitzlalT, 71 siqjport of Serampore mission, 54nl36, 54nl39 British Museum, 28-30 Broomhall, M arshall,丨 20, 261nlS9 Brown, Samuel R” 78 Brown, William, 31 Bruce, J.P” 292 Bryan, R.T., 55, 202, 238n66 Bryson, Thomas, 197n21, 201-202, 292 Buchanan, Claudius, 45-46 Buck, Pearl S., 308n43, 312,340 Bun (Schereschewsky's Ja Japanese assistant), 159 Burdon, John Shaw, 145-147, 150n68, 174-178, 197n20, 197n21, 199, 205, 208, 223224, 228nl9, 230-231, 236n54, 290, 329nll9 concept of Lower Classical, 162 Burdon/Blodget's New Testament translation, 85n39, 164, 166n30, 174-181, 188, 203, 236,268, 364, 406,408 and Chinese assistants, 175 as response to G. John's translation, 174 basis versions, 176 Jdin's view on, 164 no participation by other missionaries, 175-176 public reception, 178 publicaticm by ABS, 176 Bums' Psalm translation, 143-144, 169, 405, 408

In d e x

influence oa other verskxis, 143 public recqidon, 144 Burns, William Charles, 144-145 translation of Pilgrim’s Progress, 144 Cai Gao, 41n83 Cai San, 41n83 Cai Xing, 41n83 Candlin, G.T” 203n35, 292 canonical nature of Bible, 103, 130, 333, 344, 369-370 Carey, William, 19, 45 Catholic Bible translations, 2631,368, 418-422 Aubazac/Feng, 419 Basset, see Basset's New Testament transladoa Bousquet, 419 Collegio dei Cinesi di Napoli, 26n8 Dejean, 418 D’Entrecolles, 26n8 Gonialvez, 26oS Ughi, 26-27 Li Wenyu, 419 Litvanyi, 420-421 Ma Xiangbo, 420 Monte Corviuo, 26-27 Petit/Song, 422 Poirot, see Poirot's Bible translation Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 421 Wang Duomo, 26n8 Wu Jingxiong, 420 Xiao Jingshan, see Xiao Jingshan's New Testament translation Xin Fangji, 26n8

In d e x

Xinjing, 422 Xinyijuyin chugao, 421 Catholic Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, 349 cooperation with United Bible Societies, 349 Catholic terminology, 37 Chalmers* translation of Psalms, 212-213, 406, 407 Chalmers, Jrfin, 40n77, 104, 132, 212, 220, 224, 230, 241-243, 258, 298,329nll9 conflicts with Union Version committee, 242 death of, 243 su^ort of Delegates' Version, 213 translation of Psalms, 212-213 Chalmerrs/Schaub's Newv Testamen translation, 230-232 ,237, 243247, 341, 406, 407 and Delegates' Version、244-245 basis versions, 245-246 Chinese assistants, 366 influence on Easy Wenli Union Version, 237 public reception, 246-247 publication of New Testament, 244 purpose of translation, 245 reasons for start of translation, 243 translation of baptism, 56, 245 trans： lation principles, 366 Chambeirs, Robert E” 239-240 Chang Hsi Hsin, see Zhang Xixin Chen Laoyi, 39-40 Chen Luojia’s translation of Song of Solomon, 412 Chen Zemin, 357

431

Cheng Jingyi, 263, 268-269, 336n20, 345, 368n4 influence on Union Version, 269 rominence in Chinese church, 268 丨 Cheng Zhiyi, 14 Chiang Kaishek, see Jiang Jieshi Chiang, Jose沖 ，415 Chiao, Evelyn, 416 China Bq>tist Publication Society, 239-240, 355nl07 China Bible House, 346n65 China Inland Mission full siq>port of Bailer for transl station work, 317 Chinese assistants, i 366 Bridgman/Culbertson, 366 Burdon/Blodget, 175 Chalmers/Schaub, 366 changing perception of, 260, 261nl59, 319-320, 366 Delegates’ Version, 91-93 dependence on Western translator, 261 Easy Wenli Union Version, 229230.366 Faber, 211 full vote in Union Version committee, 320 G. John, 170, 366 rd, 115-116, 366 Goddard Gury, 1134 ： laff, 70, 366 Gfltzlaff, High Wenli Union Version, 251252 Hudson, 121 increasing contribution, 319320.366 involvement in Union Version translation, 329 Legge, 128-129 Mandarin Union Version, 257-

432

258, 58, 260-264, 319-321, 366 Marshman/Lassar, larshman/Las 44, 366 Medhurst, 71, 366 Medhurst/Giitzlaff/Medhurst, 62 missionaries，attitude to, 137 Morrison/Milne, 39-41, 366 Nanking Version, 142 omission of names, 229, 252 Peking Version, 148 problematic coq)eration with Western missionaries, 342-343 salary of, 317n77, 329nl20 Schereschewsky, 158-159 Sydenstricker, 260-261 Chinese Christian Review, 219 Chinese New International Version, 417 Chinese Recorder, 82n33 Chinese Repository, 61 Chinese Union Version with New Punctuation, 354-355 Chinese Union, 72 Chinese Weekly, 219 Chinese, style, see styles of Chinese Chiu Ching Dau, 116 Christian Literature Society, 219 Chuci, 213, 346n63 Church Missionary Society, 28nl8 Church of Christ in China, 337 CIM, see China Inland Mission Cixi (Empress Dowager), 103nl 18 Clarke, Samuel R” 218, 255-257, 259, 263-267, 271, 329nll8 Bible translation into Buyi, 267nl74 classical Chinese, 19-21 and Confucian terminology, 140,253 、 and preaching, 140

In d e x

definitkm of, 161n3 in the South of China, 331-333 CMS, see Church Misskmary Society Collegio dei Cinesi di Napoli, 26n8 committee work axnmittees widiout dominating leaders, 367 disturbance by furloughs, 241, 299 geographical quotas, 198, 200n29 natkmal quotas, 63, 176, 198, 199n26, 200n29, 268, 291-292 Compromise Term, 87-89, 368 questionnaire on, 89 conferences, see General Missionary Omference and Missionary Conference conservatism of Chinese church, 369 of missionaries, 369 Convention of Peking, 139 Corbett, Hunter, 201 Corinthians (2) 4:4, 150n74 10:13, 344n51 Comaby, William A., 219 Critical New Testament Greek and English, 340n38 criticize, see judge Cruden, A. (concordance), 92 Culbertson, Michael, 81n27, 98, • 104-108, 141nl4 Cummings, S. 104nl23 currency, see measurements, translation of

In d e x

Dangdai shengjing, 90n56, 157nll5, 358nl21, 415-416 Daniel 1:21, 354nl03 Darlow/Moule, 14 Davis, John W.，197n20, 228-229, 231, 236n54, 329nll9 de, 353n92, 355-356 Dean, William, 78, 79nl2, 112-115 Dean’s translation of the Old Testament, 118, lS0nl03, 405, 407 publication, 118 revision of the New Testament, 118 Dejean, J.J.F., 418 Delegates' Version, 71, 77-100, 118-119, 131, 132, 142-144, 154nl01, 165-166, 186, 199, 216, 244-245, 268, 278, 279, 331-332, 363-364, 370, 405, 407 and Nanking Version, 142-144 Chinese assistants, 91-93 crucial position in discussions about Union Version, 193-195 dominance of London Missionary Society’s missionaries, 91 influence, 186 NT translation principles, 78-79, 95, 365 NT translation procedures, 7980 Old Testament translation procedures, 97 Old Testament translation, 97100 problem of naming, 100-101 public reception, 103 publication of New Testament, 97 reasr), 320-321 ifan, 263-264 Li Chunfan, 2

In d e x

Li Ch'wen-fan, see Li Chunfan Li Rongfang, 345 Li Rongfang’s translation of Lamentations, 346n63, 413 Li Shanlii, 417 Li Shigong, 39-40 Li Shiyuan, 14 Li Wenyu, 419 Li, Laurendus, see Li Wenyu Lian Yinghuang, 158, 182 Liang Fa, 72 Liang Gong, 13 life, 37, 235 ling, see Spirit Lisao, 346n63 Little, E.S” 197n20 Litvanyi, G” 421 Litvanyi’s New Testament translation, 337n24, 421 Liu Dacheng, 263-264, 320-321 Liu Tingfang, 345 Liu Yiling, 13, 344-345 reception of Union Version, 344345 Liu Yiling’s translation of John, 344,414 Lloyd, Llewelyn, 248-251, 293, 299-300, 302-303, 306n37, 329nll9 LMS, see London Missionary Society Lobscheid, Wilhelm, 69n59 Logos, 49nl25, 66n41, 69n63, 134 London Mission Version, 101-104, 169, 180nl03, 194, 199, 405, 407

441

in comparison to the Delegates ’ Version, 103 London Missionary Society, 31 and Baptist Missionary Society, 53 and Marshman, 51 pride in early achievements, 214 support of Mandarin Union Version, 265, 267 Long Yuan, 134 Loomis, 203 Lord, Edward Clemens, 116-117 as US consul, 117 conflicts with mission society, 117 death of, 117 Lord’s Prayer, see Matthew 5:3-10 Lord's revision and translation, 116117, 176, 180nl03, 237, 497 public reception, 118-119 publication of New Testament, 117-118 love, 340n35 lower classical, 99n99 definition of, 161n3, 161163, 234-235 discovery of, 364 perception of, 364 translations into, 161-183, 227-240 Low-Heen, 40 Lowrie, James W., 292, 314-315, 317n79,329nll8 Lowrie, Walter M” 42n90, 63n24, 78, 81,314 death of, 81 Lowry, H.H., 197n20, 197n21 Lowth, R. (translation of Isaiah), 38. 152

442

Lu Chen-chung, see Lii Zhenzhong LuXun, 334nll,334nl3 Lu Zhenzhong, 347, 415 LO Zhenzhong's Bible translation, 157nll5, 347, 415 and Union Version revision, 347 3:14, 357 Luke 3: Lunyu, 125 Luo Qian, see Low-H6en Luo Weiren, see I-Jin Lcrfi Luo Xurong, 14 Luo Zhenfang, 357 Luther, Martin (Bible translation), 126, 340n37, 352-353 Ly, Andreas, 28-30 Ma Xiangbo, 187nl, 420 MacClatchie, Thomas, 100, 108109, 141nl6, 146n45 MacGiUivray, D., 292, 322n93 MacGowan, D.J., 53nl34, 78, 131 Maclagan, Patrick J., 292-293, 300, 302, 306n37, 329nll9 Maclay, Robert S., 105nl27, 107, 121n50, 188n2 Mandarin Union Version Bible, 406, 408, 409; see also Man­ darin Union Version New Testament and Mandarin Union Version Old Testa­ ment and May Fourth Movement, 334nl4 as a model for baihua, 333 as the ”Word of God,*4 345, 370 as the authorized version, 335-336, 345, 369

In d e x

Baptist reviskn efforts, 355356 changed meanings of terms, 343, 353 changing translation principles, 366 Chinese assistants, 366 colloquial terms, 343-344 dialectal terms, 344, 351 edition with revised punctuatkm, 354 failure of reviskm attempts, 348-351 impact on Chinese authors, 334 Mainland revision efforts, 356-359 miswritten characters, 344 name change, 346 obsessive faithfulness, 344 obsolete terms, 343, 354 principles of revision in the 1980s, 351-353 public recqxion, 332-336, 343-345 publications of revised Matthew and Ronans, 352 reception by Western missionaries, 335 reception in non-Christian circles, 333-334 revision attempts, 345-359 revision by Zhou Zuoren, 345-346 terms with stylistic problems, 344, 353 transliterations, 344 use in governmental schools, 333 Mandarin Union Version New Testament, 132, 337, 406, • 408-410; see also Mandarin Union Version Old Testa­ ment and Mandarin Union

In d e x

Version Bible American Standard Version, influence on, 278 Authorized Version, influence on, 277-278 basis versions, Chinese, 278282 basis versions, Greek, 276278 Chinese assistants, 257-258, 260-264, 366 communication problems, 257-258 conflicts in translation committee, 256-258 iption 丨 of committee description work, 263, 273-274 differing conceptions of language styles, 258-259 double readings in first edition, 272 election of executive committee, 202 election of translation committee, 216-221 English Revised Version, influence on, 277-278 first draft of New Testament, 271 improvement in committee work, 267 literalness of 1907 edition, 273 national quotas, 268 principles of 1918 revision, 322-323 problems of finding translators, 219-221 procedures for election of translation/revision committee, 199-200 procedures of, 255-274 revision before the 1907 conference, 272

443

revision in 1909, 315 revision in 1918, 322-329 rotating chairmanship, 270271 Schereschewsky's criticism of, 272nl99 Shandong dialect in, 256, 258, 344n51 suggested Chinese basis versilet o f Mechlin, a Jesuit in Belgium" (22-35); Claudia von Collani. “Philippe Couplet’s Missionary Attitude Towards the Chinese in Confucius Sinarum Philosophusn (37-54); Albert Chan, S.J” T ow ards a Chinese Church: The Contribution o f Philippe Couplet, S.J. (1622-1693)” (55-86); Paul Demaerel, “Couplet and the Dutch" (87-120); Theodore N. Foss, “The European Sojourn o f Philippe Couplet and Michael Shen Fuzong, 1683-1692" (121-142); John Witek, S.J., "PhUippe Couplet: a Belgian Connection to the Beginning o f the 17th Century French Jesuit M is­ sion in China" (144-161); Edward J. Malatesta, S.J” “The Last Voyage o f Philippe Couplet" (164-181); David E. Mungello, “A Study o f the Prefaces to Ph. Couplet's Tabula Chronologica Monarchiae Sinicae (1686)" (183-199); Knud Lundbaek. MPhilippe C o l l e t in the Writings o f T.S. Bayer” (201-209); Lin Jinshui, “Recent Developments in Chinese Research on the Jesuit Missionaries" (211-223). H ace order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 * Fax: 02157/12 02 22

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES __________________ VoLXXV________________

Johann Adam Schall von Bell S.J. Missionar in China, kaiserlicher Astronom und Ratgeber am Hofe von Peking 1592-1666 Ein Lebens- und Zeitbild von A l f o n s V a t h S .J . Unter Mitwirkung von Louis V an H ee S.J.

Neue Auflage mit einem Nachtrag und Index Eine gemeinsame Verdffentlichung des China-Zentrums und des Instituts Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1991, 419 S., Abb. ISBN 3-8050-0287-4 • ISSN 0179-261X Aus AnlaB des 400. Geburtstages des Kolner Jesuiten und Chinamissionars Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592-1666) wurde die 1933 im Bachem-Verlag erschienene Biografrfiie von Alfons VSth S.J. neu aufgelegt. a thorough yet lively description o f the life and times o f a Jesuit courtier in imperial China. It is a work o f love. It is not uncritical o f the subject but it is partisan, and perhaps that is as a biography should be. " (A rne Sovik in International Review o f Missions) •What is remarkable is how this work remains to this day a grand tale o f narrative history and a veritable mine o f information that is unsurpassed in treating its subject. Those interested in its contents would extend beyond specialists to include a semi-popular audience. The scholarly value o f the book has been enhanced in the new edition by the addition o f a bibliographical addendum by Ms. C. von Collani, in which the bibliography o f the first edition is enlarged and brought up to date. In addition, a new index was prepared by Fr. R. Malek, s.v.D. that includes Chinese characters. Finally, a new genealogical tree featuring Scholl's relationship to his family was contributed by a contemporary descendant o f Fr. Schall, the Grttf Schall-Riaucour. This is a surprisingly inexpensive, well-produced hardbound work that would be a valuable addition to any personal or institutional library in the field o f SinoWestern cultural relations. • (D .E. M ungello in Sino-Westem Cultural Relations Journal) Bestellungen ttber den Buchhandel oder: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 * Fax: 02157/12 02 22

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES _________________ Vol. XXX________________

Ferdinand Verbiest, S.J. (1623-1688) Jesuit Missionary, Scientist, Engineer and Diplomat Edited by JOHN W . W itek , S.J. Jointly published by Ferdinand Verbiest Foundation, Leuven, and Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1994, 602 pp., Illustr. ISBN 3-8050-0328-5 • ISSN 0179-261X The book presents the proceedings of the international conference in Leuven in 1988, held in commemoration of the three hundredth anniversary o f the death of the Belgian Jesuit Ferdinand Verbiest. Scientist, engineer, and diplomat, he was above all a missionary who contributed significantly to the growth of Christianity in China and to Sino-W estem cultural exchange. this collection enlightens us on some o f the complexities o f an eminent seventeenth-century European missionary to China . . . ” D. E. M ungello in International Bulletin o f Missionary Research ”Der Band ist nicht nur flir Missiologen interessant, sondem auch lesenswert flir Sinologen und Spezialisten der Qing-Zeit sowie des europdisch-chinesischen Kulturaustausches.M C laudia von C ollani in Neue Zeitschrift JUr Missionswissenschaft "The essays are so diverse in subject, approach, and agenda that a polymath, a veritable Verbiest, would be required to do justice to all o f them. ... some o f the essays do suggest new ideas and approaches that could contribute to the underdeveloped fields o f world and comparative history. " J ohn B. H enderson in Sino-Westem Cultural Relations Journal

Place order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 * Fax: 02157/12 02 22

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES _________________VoL XXXIII_______________

The Chinese Rites Controversy Its History and M eaning Edited by D .E . M ungello Jointly published by Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin, and The Ricci Institute for Chinese Western Cultural History, San Francisco Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1994, 356 pp. ISBN 3-8050-0348-X • ISSN 0179-261X 400 years ago when European explorers and missionaries began spreading throughout the world, they encountered a land whose great size, population, wealth and culture challenged European intellectual and spiritual authority. One of the forms this challenge took was the Chinese Rites Controversy. Christian missionaries divided on their degree of willingness to accom­ modate Chinese culture. 18th-century papal rulings against the accommodationists were reversed in 1939 and the deeper issues involved in the Rites Controversy remain crucial to the development of Christianity in China. This collection presents the proceedings of an international conference on the significance of the Rites Controversy in Sino-Westem history, held in San Francisco in 1992. It contains fifteen articles by contemporary mainstream China scholars from four continents, including some of the most eminent names in Sinology today. "This volume seeks to cover the fu ll range o f current interpretations o f the Rites Controversy, and Mungello’s introduction provides a useful guide to them .m Philos印 hy East A West "Most o f the essays are very well researched and provide much new information on and new insights into a brief but highly significant episode o f the protracted Chinese Rites and Term Controversy. Since there is as yet no definitve or comprehensive history, this scholarly work affords a usefid introduction to the tragic struggle which agitated the church fo r several centuries." R. G. T iedemann in International Bulletin o f Missionary Research

Place order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 * Fax: 02157/12 02 22

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES ________________Vol.XXXV/1-2_______________

“Western Learning” and Christianity in China The Contribution and Impact of Johann Adam Schall von Bell (1592-1666) Edited by Roman M alek , s .v .d . Institut Monumenta Serica and China-Zentrum, Sankt Augustin Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1998 2 vols., 1259 pp. Illustr. ISBN 3-8050-0409-5 • ISSN 0179-261X This collection presents the proceedings of the international conference in Sankt Augustin held in 1992, commemorating tbe four hundredth anniversary of the birth of Johann Adam Schall von Bell, s . j . Ail articles are printed in their original language, i.e., English, Chinese, German and French. Additional contributions on the subject have been included. The book is siq)plemented with summaries in English and Chinese, as well as with numerous illustrations, a bibliography, and a general index with a glossary. Introduction: R o m a n M a l e k , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and His 1992 Anniversary; I. Johann Adam Schall vmi Ben：Tbe Person and His Context: P e t e r H a n s K o l v e n b a c h , Johann Adam Schall von Bell - A Jesuit; A r n o l d S p r e n g e r , Johann Adam Schall's Educational Foundation and tbe Intellectual Climate of His Time; Lu Y a o , Three Issues on Johann Adam Schall von Bell; C l a u d i a v o n C o l l a n i , J(Aann Adam Schall von Bell: Weltbild und Weltchronologie in der Chioamission im 17. Jahrhundert; M a B ia o , Johann Adam Schall and Chinese Traditional Philosophy; J o h n W . W i t e k , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and the Transition from the Ming to the Ch’ing Dynasty; Liu M e n g x i, Johann Adam Scball's Role in the Reform Period; H a o Z h e n h u a , Johann Adam Schall and the First Dutch Diplomatic Mission to the Qing Empire; G i o v a n n i S t a r y , Mandschurische Inschriften und Zeugnisse zu Johann Adam Schall von Bell; E d w a r d J. M a l a t e s t a , The Lost Sbeep of Adam Schall. Reflections on the Past and Present of the Shala Cemetery; II. Jdiann Adam Schall v o d Bcfl and His Chinese Cmitemporaries: A l b e r t C h a n , Johann Adam Schall in T’an Ch'ieo's Pei-yu lu and in the Eyes of His Contemporaries; C h e n M in - s u n , Jobann Adam Schall, Hsfl Kuang-ch'i, and Li TMen-ching; E u g e n io M e n e g o n , Yang Guangxian's 0^>osition to Jobann Adam Scball: Christianity and Western Science in His Work Bu de yi\ R e n Dayuan, Philq)pe Wang Zheng: A Scientist, Philosopher, and Catholic in Ming Dynasty China; III. Johann Adam SdiaU von Beil - Astrology, Astronomy, and Calendar: C l a u d i a v o n C o l l a n i , Theologie und Astronomie in China; T i z i a n a L i p p i e l l o , Astronomy and Astrology: Johann Adam Schall von Bell; H u a n g Y卜 Long, East-West Cultural Confrontation and Co啤 romise in Early Ch’ing China. A Case Study on Johann Adam Schall's Civil Calendars; Z h a n g D a w e i, The "Calendar Case" in the Early Qing Dynasty Re-examined; J i a n g X ia o y u a n , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and tbe Ptolomaic Astronomy in China; K e iz o H a s h i m o t o , Johann Adam Schall and Astronomical Works on Star Mappings; Gu N in g , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and His Horizontal Sundial of the New Western Calendar; M in a k o D e b e r g h , Les cartes astronomiques des missiooaires J6suites en Chine: de Johann Adam Schall von Bell i Ignaz KOgler et leurs filiations en Cor6e et au Japon; Yi S h i t o n g , Newly Found Astronomical Instruments Concerning Johann Adam Schall von Bell; N i c o l e H a l s b e r g h e , Quotations from the Works of Johann Adam Schall in the Yixiang zhi of Ferdinand Verbiest; J e a n - C l a u d e M a r t z l o f f , Notes on Planetary Theories in

Giacomo Rbo’s Wuwei lizhi; IV. “Western lming” in Chlmu The Cootrflmtkn of Johann Adam Schall voo Bell: B e n ja m in A. E l m a n , The “Chinese Sciences" in Policy Questions from Confucian Civil Examinations During the Late Ming; C a t h e r i n e J a m i, Mathematical Knowledge in the Chongzhen lishu\ P a n J ix in g , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and the Spread of Georgius Agricola's De re metallica in Late Ming China; Z h a n g Z h i s h a n , Johann Adam Schall von Bell and His Book On Telescopes-, S u n X i, Johann Adam Schall von Bell und die westlichen .Feuerwaffen** in China; I s a i a I a n n a c c o n e , The Geyuan baxian biao (Trigonometric Tables) and Some Remarks about the Scientific Collaboration between Schall von Bell, Rho, and Schreck; Y a n g X i a o h o n g , Die Haltung der chinesischen Intellektuellen zur Xixue (Westliche Lehre) am Ende der Ming- und Anfang der Qing-Dynastie. Ein Vergleich zwiscben Matteo Ricci und Johann Adam Schall im Hinblick auf ihre Methode der ”Evangelisierung durcb Wissenschaft“ ； Z h a n g X ia o , Modern Scientific Culture Introduced into China by Catholic Missionaries During the Ming and the Cb’ing Dynasties; V. The Religious Writings and Activities of Johann Adam Schall von BeU: C h e n S o n g , Johann Adam Schall von Bell in China: MPropagating Catholicism Through Academic Activities"; A d r i a n D u d i n k , The Religious Works Composed by Johann Adam Schall, Especially His Zhuzhi qunzheng and His Efforts to Convert the Last Ming Emperor; Z h a o P u s h a n , Johann Adam Schall and His Work Zhuzhi qunzheng-, X ia o L i a n g q i o n g , Schall and His Chinese Work Zhuzhi qunzheng-, A n g e l o S. L a z z a r o t t o , Wide Apostolic Concern of Johann Adam Schall; H o r s t R z e p k o w s k i, Der Beitrag von Jc^iann Adam Schall von Bell zur einheimischen christlichen Kuost; VI. Johann Adam Schall von Bell as a Ltterary and Iconographic Figure: G r e g o r y B l u e , Johann Adam Schall and the Jesuit Mission in Vondel’s Zungchin-, A d r i a n H s ia , Der literariscbe Beitrag zur Darstellung der Jesuitenmission in China, iosbesondere des Wirkens von Johann Adam Schall von Bell; C h a n g S h e n g - c h i n g , Das Portr§t von Johann Adam Schall von Bell in Athanasius Kirchers China illustrata; VII: Johann Adam Schall voo BcO: Reception and Impact: H a o G u i y u a n , The Differences and Similarities of Thought and Culture between China and the West Reflected in Works Written by Jesuits in Chinese in the Early Period; Y a n g Y i, Johann Adam Schall's Writings in China; W a n g B in g , An bttroduction of Some Chinese Records and Researches on Johann Adam Schall von Bell's Scientific Activities; Y o s h id a T a d a s h i , The Works of Johann Adam Schall von Bell in Tokugawa Japan; Gu W e im in ； Erliiuteningen und Forschungen zu Johann Adam Schall von Bell in China im 19. und 2 0 . Jahrhundert; T a t j a n a A. P a n g , Russian Evidence of Johann Adam Schall von Bell; VIII. The Encounter of Europe and China: Other Examples: N o e l G o l v e r s , The Development of the Confucius Sinarum Philosophus Reconsidered in the Light of New Material; R i t a W b d m a ie r , Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz' Streben nach Harmonie zwischen China und Europa; G e r u n d e G i l d , The Introduction of European Musical Theory during the Early Qing Dynasty. The Achievements of Thomas Pereira and Theodorico Pedrini; P a u l S h a n , Science and Faith in China Today.

Place order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES _________________Vol. XXXVH _

Secondino Gatta

II natural lume de Cinesi Teoria e prassi dell’evangelizzazione nella Breve relatione di Philippe Couplet S.J. (1623-1693) Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin • Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1998, 241 pp., Illustr. ISBN 3-8050-0404-4 • ISSN 0179-261X This publication deals with a manuscript, written by Philippe Couplet S.J., who was a missionary in China from 1658 till 1681. He was sent as a procurator o f the Chinese missions to Europe, where he stayed till 1692. ...It was during this time that he composed: A Brief Report of the Situation and Quality of the Mis­ sions in China. The present study contains an Italian transcript (pp. 40-96) and a facsimile edition (pp. 163-241) o f this document. In an appendix, 316 Chinese works, presented by Couplet to Pope Innocent X I in 1685 and preserved in the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, are listed (pp. 121-138). Gatta added an intro­ duction and some conclusions. The Brief Report mentions in a nutshell all the main characteristics o f the mis­ sionary approach o f the Jesuits: evangelization from the top to the bottom, as­ similation with the culture o f the Confucians, the coincidence o f the original Chinese and Christian notion o f God and o f the ethical norms, the accomodation to the rites o f Confucianism, the negative relationship with Buddhism and Tao­ ism, the importance o f the study o f astronomy and other sciences and the use o f books published in Chinese. Both the mission o f Couplet to Europe and his Brief Report have played a role in the Rites Controversy. The author o f this book has to be thankedfo r this precious edition and commentary. arnulf

C amps

in Exchange

Place order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 • Fax: 02157/12 02 22

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES __________________ Vol. X L II__________________

“Scholar from the West” Giulio Aleni S.J. (1582-1649) and the Dialogue between China and Christianity Edited by T iziana Lippiello and Roman M alek Jointly published by the Fondazione Civilti Bresciana, Brescia, and die Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1997, 671 pp. ISBN 3-8050-0386-2 From the Contents: A n g e l o S. L a z z a r o t t o , The Brescia Synqmsium on Giulio Aleni. Essays oo the Historical Context: G i u u a n o B e r t u c c i o u , Europe as Seen from China before the Arrival of the Jesuits; P i e r o C o r r a d i n i , Christian Presence in China up lo the Time of Aleni; A d o l p o T a m b u r e l l o , Western Powers' Politics and Mis­ sionary Action in Seventeenth Century China; M a s s im o M a r c o c c h i , The Missionary Elan in the Church of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries. Aleni's Background, Biography, and RAle: M a iu o C o l p o , Giulio Aleni’s Cultural and Religious Background; E rd c Z C r c h e r , Giulio Aleni’s Biography; A d r i a n D u d in k , Giulio Aleni and Li Jiubii Jiubiao; P a u l R u l e , Giulio Aleni and tbe Chinese Rites Controversy; J o s e p h S h ih , Western Attention to Aleni as Documented by Bartoli and Colombel; E u g e n io M e n e g o n , Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans in Fujian: The Anti-Christian Incidents of 1637-1638. Tbe Religious and Missionary Woiii ot Aknl: J o h n W.f. WlTEK, Principles of Scholasticism in China: A Comparison of Giulio Aleni’s Wanwui zhenyuan with Matteo Ricci's Tianzhu shiyi; C l a u d i a v o n C o l l a n i , Francisco Lujin’s 'Annotation nes" in Giulio Aleni’s Wanwu zhenyuan：P a u l R h e in b a y , Nadal's Religious Iconography Reinterpreted by Aleni for China; X ie B iz h e n , Aleni’s Contribution to the History of Christianity in China: The Nestorian Stele and Ancient Christian Tombs in Quanzhou; F r a n c e s c o D 'A r e l l i , Manuscript Notes of Carlo Horatii da Castorano O .f .m . and Francesco da Ottaviano o . f .m . on Some of Aleni’s Chinese Writings; M a r k K. C h a n g , The Intact of Aleni’s Apologetic and Pastoral Writings; L in J in s h u i, A Tentative Study on Aleni’s Adaptation Method for Christian Evangelization; C h e n C u n f u , Trying to Assess Aleni's Mission: Success or Failure? The Humanistic and Scientifk Works Aleni: A l b e r t C h a n , The Scientific Writings of Giulio Aleni; B e r n h a r e H u n g - k a y L u k , Aleni Introduces the Western Academic Tradition to S ev eo teen l :nth-Century China: A Study of the Xixue fan-. P a n F e n g c h u a n , The Dialogue on Renxue. Giulio Aleni’s Writings on the Philosophy of the Soul and the Responses of the Chinese Scholars; F e d e r ic o M a s in i , Aleni’s Contribution to the Chinese Language; C a t h e r in e J a m i , Aleni’s Contribution to Geometry in China. A Study of the Jihe yaafa: Ls a ia Ia n n a c c o n e , The Transition of Scientific Culture from Ricci to Aleni, Schreck, Rho, and Schall von Bell: The Xiyang xirtfa lishu. Epflofue: E roc ZO r c h e r .

Place order with: Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 * Fax: 02157/12 02 22

St e y l e r V e r l a g ,

MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES _________________ Vol. XLIV________________

Donald Daniel Leslie

Jews and Judaism in Traditional China A Comprehensive Bibliography Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin Steyler Verlag, Nettetal 1998, 291 pp. ISBN 3-8050-0418-4 • ISSN 0179-261X

Contents A Short History; A Short History of the Sources; Archives and Libraries. PART I: THE PRIMARY TOPICS AND SOURCES

A. The Kaifeng Community: 1. Chinese Stelae and Inscriptions; 2. ChineseHebrew Memorial Book; 3. Hebrew Writings and Judaeo-Persian; 4. Arti­ facts; 5. Letters from the Kaifeng Community; 6. Letters to the Commu­ nity; 7. Kaifeng Jewish Informants. B. Chinese Native Sources: 1. Early Sources in Chinese; 2. Relating to the Kaifeng Community. C. Western Jewish Links: 1. The Bible; 2. Hebrew Manuscripts in China; 3. Jewish Writers; 4. Parallels with Jewish Communities Elsewhere. D. Foreign Reports: 1. Arabs and Persians (851-1498); 2. Early European Visitors to China; 3. Early Jesuits in China; 4. Later Jesuit Visitors; 5. European Interest; 6. Visitors in the 19th Century; 7. Early 20th Century Visitors; 8. Visitors, Post-1949 PART n ：SECONDARY SOURCES

1. Bibliographies; 2. Collections; 3. Key Journals; 4. Basic Works and Authors in Chronological Order. PART m ：SECONDARY WORKS BY AUTHOR

1. Western Languages; 2. Chinese; 3. Japanese; General Index.

Place order with: Steyler Verlag, Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 • Fax: 02157/12 02 22

華裔 學 志

MONUMENTA SERICA Journal of O riental Studies

Founded in 1934 at the Catholic Fu-Jen University in Peking by Fr. Franz X. Biallas, SVD (1878-1936), Monumenta Serica is an international journal devoted primarily to traditional China, covering all inyx>rtant aspects of sinology. 47 volumes averaging 500 pages each have been published up to 1999. A comprehensive Index to Volumes I-XXXV (1935-1985) is available. The Monumenta Serica Institute also publishes the Monumenta Serica Monograi^i Series (MSMS), including more than 45 titles.

FROM RECENT ISSUES ARTICLES

.

The Flourishing of the Dao in Conlucian and Daoist Learning - S p e c ia l S e c t i o n (vol. XLVI) • T s o k a n H u a n g ：Ouyang Xiu and 7himng7i (vol. XLVI) • J o h n M a k e h a m : The Formation of Lunyu as a Book (vol. XLIV) • C a i Z o n g q i ：Dramatic and Narrative Modes of Presentation in Han YQeh-fu (vol. XLIV) • R. G. T ie d e m a n n : Christianity and Chinese MHeterodox Sects." Mass Conversion and Syncretism in Shandong Province ovince in the Early Eighteenth Century (vol. XLIV) • M a r y lin M. R h ie ：A Periodization of the Early T'ang Caves at Tun-huang from A.D. 618-642. Formation of the Early T'ang Style (vol. XLIII) • R o b L i n r o t h e ：Peripheral Visions: On Recent Finds of Tangut Buddhist Art (vol. XLIII) • R b in h a r d E m m erich : Bemerkungen zu Huang und Lao in der Friihen Han-Zeit. Erkeontnisse aus Shiji und Honshu (vol. XLIII) • I r e n e E b e r: Martin Buber and Taoism (vol. XLII) REVIEW ARTICLES

Macau and Sino-Portuguese Relations, ca. 1513/1514 to ca. 1900: A Bibliographical Essay (vol. XLIV) • F a b r iz io P r e g a d io ：Chinese Alchemy. An Annocated Bibliography of Works in Western Languages (vol. XLIV) • R a im u n d T h . K o l b ： Kannibalismus im vormodernen China (vol. XLIV) • A c _ MrrTAG：I-ching-Studsam in der Sung-Zeit (vol. XLII) R o d e r ic h P ta k :

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTES

Price per volume: DM 170.- (exl. postage) For further information and a free Catalogue of Publications please contact: Editorial Office M onum enta Serica Institute Amold-Janssen-Str. 20, D-53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany • Tel.: 0049 (0) 2241 -2 3 74 31 • Fax: 0049 (0) 2241 - 20 67 70 • e-Mail: [email protected] http.//www.steyler •de/monumenta •serica

Monumenta Serica □ Other Publications

M onum enta Serica Journal of Oriental Studies

Index to Volumes I-XXXV (1935-1983) C on^iled and edited by R oman M alek , s .v . d . Institut Monumenta Serica, Sankt Augustin 1993 471 pp. ISBN 3-8050-0312-9 □ ISSN 0254-9948

This general index to volumes I-XXXV(1935-1983) provides easy access to the weal£ of information gathered during fifty years of sinological studies in Monumenta Serica. The index is divided into the following parts: I. Chronologically arranged tables of contents order of volumes (I-XXXV); II. General index of the volumes I-XXXV in alphabetical order of items; III. Index of the titles and tables of contents of the "Monumenta Serica Monograph Series" (vol. I-XX). The general index also refers to the authors and main subjects of each of the monographs. The general index of subjects includes all the titles of the articles, the names of authors of articles and reviews, and the key-words concerning the subjects. Every key-word is indicated in the language in which it was written, for each non-English key-word references to English terms are provided. ”... Outil de travail indispensable pour la consultation en bibliothique. " (Michel Cartier, in Revue BibUographique de Sinologie)

Race order with: D-41311 Nettetal, Germany Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 □ Fax: 02157/12 02 22

St e y l e r V e r l a g ,

□

P u b l i k a t i o n de s C h i n a - Z e n t r u m s

□

Fallbeispiel“ China

， ，

Okumenische Beitrage zu Religion, Theologie und Kirche im chinesischen Kontext Herausgegeben von Roman Malek C hina-Zentrum , Sankt Augustin □ Steyler Verlag, N ettetal □ 1996 693 S” DM 67.- ISBN 3-80500385-4 Dicscr Sammelband ist Pfarrer D r. JUSTUS FREYTAG (Hamburg) und Prof. D D r. HANS WALDENFELS S.J. (Bonn) zu ihrem 65. Gcburtstag^ und Prof. D r. BERNWARD H . WILLEKE O.F.M., den V orsitzcndcn des O kum enischen China-Arbcitskrcises, sowie den M itgiiedem der crsten Stunde gcwidmct. Aus dem Inhalt: China: ”Fallbeispiel**，„Gegenbild- , ”Testfall“. Eine Einfuhnmg (mit ChinaSchrifttum von Justus Freytag, Hans Waldenfels und Bernward H. W illeke)Roman M alek s.v .d . • Aus der Geschkhte der Begegnung des Christenturns mit China: Aspekle der chinesischen Bibeliibersetzung - Jost Z etzsche; Figurismus - Anfang und Ende einer kontextuellen Theologie in China - C laud ia von C o lla n i; Das kaiserliche Edikt vom 15. MSrz 1899 und das katholische Missionswesen in China - K arl Josef Rivinius s.v .d .; Die protestantische Antwort auf die 4.-Mai-Bewegung - Liu CIXIN；Die christliche Farbung der Erzahlliteratur der 4.-Mai-Bewegung - Y ang Jia n lo n g ；Die sozialen und politischen Herausforderungen fur protestantische Missionen in China vor 1949 - Richard R. D eu tsch ；Die Rolle der christlichen Mission als Werkzeug gesellschaftlicher und kultureller VerSnderung am Beispiel Chinas G eorg E vers ；Von der Christianisierung des Konfuzianismus zur Inkulturation

des Christentums in China. Einige Anmerkungen zur Sinisierung des Christentums - Xiu Haitao • Gestalten der Begegnung und des Dialogs：Liang Shumings (1893-1988) Religionsbegriff - Z bigniew W esolowski s . v . d .; John C.H. Wu (1899-1986). Ein grofier Chinese und Katholik - M a tth ia s C h r is tia n s .v .d .; Liu Xiaofengs neue Vision fur China - A r n o ld S p re n g e r s .v .d . • Herausfordenmgen heute: Chinas Tradition - Stolperstein der Modemisiening? - C a r s te n H e r r m a n n - P illa th ；Moralische Herausfordenmgen in China - Z h o u H e；Rechtsverstandnis, Menschenrechte und die chinesische Tradition - S te p h a n P u h l • ”Die Rellgionsfktige**: Theorien iiber Religion im heutigen China - Z h u o X inping；Literatur und Religion. Drei Ebenen - C h en S h u n x in ；Religion und Naturwissenschaften - F a n g L izhi；Die christliche Suche nach der Wahrheit. Kommentar zu Fang Lizhis ”Religion und Naturwissenschaften“ —T h a d d e u s H a n g ；Kultur und Religion in China. Geschichte einer Debatte - A n g e lo S. L a z z a r o t t o p.i.m .e；Gegenseitige Anpassung und Harmonie. Zur Religionspolitik in der Volksrepublik China - W in frie d G lu e r • MTestfallM des Glaubens: Theologie und Kirche im heutigen China: Die Kirche in China am Vorabend des 21. Jahrhunderts: Probleme und Fragen P h ilip L. W ic k e ri；Die Gemeinden im Bereich des Chinesischen Christenrates. Skizze einer Bewegung auf dem Weg zur verfaBten Kirche - C la u d ia W A h risc h -O b la u ；Fflr eine emeuerte Kirche in China. Ekklesiologische Herausforderungen - R o b e r t J. S c h r e ite r c.pp.s.; Kirche in China und die Kirchen. Die Grundhaltung der nBriickenkircheu - ALOYSIUS B. CHANG S.J.; Die katholische Kirche in China: Eine kirchenrechtliche Bewertung - G e o f f r e y King s .j.; Die katholische Kirche in China: Eine kirchenrechtliche Bewertung. Entgegnung auf den Artikel von Geoffrey King - S te p h e n L e e；Schritte auf dem Weg zu einer chinesischen Theologie. Bericht iiber Inhalt und Arbeitsmethode von drei theologischen Publikationen - Luis G u th e in z S.J.; Zeitgendssische Predigt in Chinas evangelischen Gemeinden als Experimentierfeld kontextueller Theologie - G o t t h a r d O b la u ；Mission als Partnerschaft. Die Mitwirkung der Benediktinerkongregation von St. Ottilien in der Didzese Jilin - Erzabt N o tk e r W o lf o .s.b .; Zur Spiritualitat katholischer Chinesen heute. Beobachtungen und Bemerkungen - M a n fr e d P l a t e .

B estellungen iib er den B uchhandel oder: S t e y l e r V e r l a g , Postfach 24 60, D-41311 Nettetal Tel.: 02157/12 02 20 □ Fax: 02157/12 02 22

ORDER FORM MO NUMENTA SERICA *J丨 Anz. Qty

—

_

二

二

Band (Jahr) Preis(DM ) Volume (Year) Price (DM) 1(1935-1936) — • XII (1947) XIII (1948) 40.40.XIV (1949-1955) XV (1956) 40.XVI (1957) 40.XVII (1958) 40.XVIII (1959) 40.XIX (1960) 40.XX (1961) 40.XXI (1962) 40.XXII (1963) 40.XXIII (1964) 40.XXIV (1965) 40.XXV (1966) 40.* XXVI (1967) XXVII (1968) 55.XXVIII (1969) 55.XXIX (1970-1971) 60.XXX (1972-1973) 55.XXXI (1974-1975) 90_- (repr.) * XXXII (1976) XXXIII (1977-1978) 94,16 XXXIV (1979-1980) 111,28 XXXV (1981-1983) 123,05 XXXVI (1984-1985) 132,68 XXXVII (1986-1987) 158.XXXVIII (1988-1989) 158.XXXIX (1990-1991) 158.XL (1992) 158.XLK1993) 158.XLII (1994) 158.XLIII (1995) 158.XLIV (1996) 158.XLV(1997) 158.XLVI (1998) 158.XLVII(1999) 170.INDEX to Vols. I-XXXV 90.Summe / Sub Total

一

Summe Amount _

DM

VergrifTcn, Nachdruck in Vorbereitung / Out o f print，reprint in preparation

ORDER FORM MONUMENTA SERICA MONOGRAPH SERIES Anzahl Quantity

Band Volume IX XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XX XXI XXII XXIII XXIV XXV XXVI XXVII XXVII XXIX XXX XXXI XXXII XXXIII XXXIV XXXV/1-2 XXXVII XXXVIII XL XLI XLII XLIII XLIV

Autor Author Bunger Ch’en Yuan Yen Yuan Collani Coblin Mattos Kohn Pohl Heyndrickx Goodrich Nylan Vath Ching/Oxtoby Reis-Habito Golvers Wadow Witek Maclnnis Wiedehage Mungello * KniBmann Malek (ed.) Gatta Wesotowski Zimmer Lau Lippiello/Malek Eber et al. Leslie

Preis (DM) Summe Price (DM) Amount 70.50, 30.65,80 80.148.70.70.48.148.60.35.70 , 5 0, 80, 65.120.50.90, 60.55.200.60.80.70.95.120.90, 65.-

* l).S. Distributor: Loyola University Press, 3441 N. Ashland Avenue, Chicago, IL 60657, Tel.: 1-800-621-1008, Fax: 312-281-0555; U.S. Price: $ 40.00

Andere PublOcadoaen / Other publications Goodrich, Peking Temple Goodrich, Chinese Hells Puhl, Georg M. Stem Malek, ..Fallbeispiel" China Malek, Hongkong Bloch, Holzschnitte

30.38,50 40.67.58.65.-

ORDER FORM German and European customers will be invoiced by our distributor, the S t e y l e r V e r l a g in Nettetal. Non-European customers are kindly asked for prepayment. Please add charges for postage and handling to your order. Delivery to customers will be maude by Steyler V erlag upon receipt of payment. Porto und Versandkosten / Postage and Handling (Surface Mail): Journal, per copy: Monograph, per copy:

DM9.DM 7.-

Summe / Sub Total Porto und Versandkosten / Postage and HandlinfE

DM

Gesamtsumme / Total

DM

DM

PAYMENT

□ Cheque (payable to Monumenta Serica Institute) □ International money order □ Credit card: Card No

D VISA □ □ □ □

□ MasterCard □ □ □ □

□ □ □ □

Expires Unterschrift / Signature Datum / Date Name

_____________________________

____________________________________

__________________________________________

Anschrift / Address

Bestellungen an / Place order with:

Institut Monumenta Series Amold-Janssen-Str. 20 D-53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany Tel.: 02241 / 23 74 31 • Fax: 02241 / 20 67 70 • E-mail: [email protected]