No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
A Translation or A Revision? The Mandarin Union Version and its use of the Chinese base texts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 November 2019
Abstract
When the plan to translate the Union Version in Guanhua (Mandarin) was announced at the 1890 Conference in Shanghai, it was decided that all three existing Mandarin versions—the 1856 Nanking Version, the 1872 Peking Version, and Griffith John's translation of 1889 - were to be equally used as the Chinese base texts of the new version. The decision was part of an overarching effort of appeasement and compromises, in order to secure the general agreement of the Protestant communities deeply divided over the issues of bible translations since the early days of Morrison and Marshman. In reality the Nanking Version and Griffith John were scarcely consulted, and the Peking Version would be the primary Chinese base text used by the committee. What is not always apparent to scholars and readers of the Mandarin Union Version is the extent it has been modeled after the Peking Version, not only because of the high regard the committee members had for this early Bible translation in Mandarin Chinese, but also as a direct result of the manner by which the Mandarin Union Version was completed in a committee setting. By examining the historical context surrounding the translation of the Mandarin Union Version, and the textual features of it in comparison to the Peking Version, this article calls for a stronger emphasis on the role and influence of the Chinese base text on this widely-used Chinese Bible translation, as its popularity and scholarly interests persist, 100 years after its completion.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 2019
References
1 The final publication of the Union Version in 1919 had both the Wenli (classical Chinese) and the Guanhua (Mandarin vernacular Chinese) versions, and also came in Shangdi and Shen (different translation of the word “God”) versions, as well as the Jin and Xi (different translation of the word “baptism”) versions. An all-embracing approach designed to satisfy various different Christian communities.
2 “What is difficult to fathom is that, there has been an unceasing call for indigenization within the Chinese churches since 1920s. Many Chinese church leaders have advocated the building of a ‘self-managing’, ‘self-sustaining’ and ‘self-evangelizing’ Chinese Church, yet none of their calls did anything to shake the authority of the Union Version.” Chong, Yau-yuk 莊柔玉, Jidujiao Shengjing zhongwen yiben quanwei xianxiang yanjiu《基督教聖經中文譯本權威現象研究》(A Study of the Phenomenon of Authoritativeness in the Chinese Translations of the Protestant Bible) (Hong Kong, 2000), pp. 2-3Google Scholar; “Published in 1919, the Mandarin Union Version (Heheben 和合本) has become the most popular and influential translation of the Bible in the Chinese-speaking world”, Mak, George, Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, (Leiden, 2017), p. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
3 Hong, Joseph, “Revision of the Chinese Union Version Bible (CUV): Assessing the challenges from an historical perspective”, The Bible Translator, 53(2), (pp. 238-248), p. 239Google Scholar.
4 I'm only including the translations of the entire Bible here: Sigao yiben《思高譯本》(The Studium Biblicum Version) of 1968, Lu Zhen Zhong yiben《呂振中譯本》 (The Translation by Lu Zhen Zhong) of 1970, Dangdai Shengjing《當代聖經》(The Contemporary Bible) of 1979, Xiandai Zhongwen yiben《現代中文譯本》(Today's Chinese Bible) of 1979, and Shengjing Xinyiben 《聖經新譯本》(The Chinese New Version) of 1992.
5 Yi, Yan Lu 顏路裔, Shengjing zhe bensh《聖經這本書》 (This book - the Bible) (Hong Kong, 1968), p. 69Google Scholar.
6 Joseph Hong, “Revision of the Chinese Union Version Bible (CUV): Assessing the challenges from an historical perspective”, p. 239.
7 George Mak has provided a brief list of recent studies that have focused on the Mandarin Union Version, in additional to his examination of the impact of the version on the Mandarin language used in China. Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, pp. 2-3.
8 Guanhua, literally means “Court Language”, is commonly translated as “Mandarin”. The vernacular language that it defined changed over time, most importantly from the Nanking dialect to the Peking dialect, following the succession of the Ming regime by the Qing. See Tong, Clement, “Foreignized translation and the case against ‘Chinese vernacular fiction’”, MTM Journal, 6 (2014), pp. 81-97, pp. 84-85Google Scholar.
9 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai May 7-20, 1890. (Shanghai, 1890) p. xliiGoogle Scholar.
10 Ibid, pp. xl-xli.
11 Zetzsche, Jost Oliver, The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version or The Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China. (Sankt Augustin, 1999) p. 199Google Scholar.
12 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai May 7-20, 1890, p. xliii.
13 Ibid, p. 515.
14 Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. 163.
15 Clement Tsz Ming Tong, Qishi yu wenzi: Zhongwen Shengjing fanyi de gushi (1807-1919)《啟示與文字：中文聖經翻譯的故事（1807-1919）》(Revelation and Text – Story of the Chinese Bible (1807-1919)) (Hong Kong, 2017), pp. 173-176.
16 Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai May 7-20, 1890, p. xliii.
17 According to Thor Strandenanaes’ analysis, both the Palmer and the Scrivener texts are more likely to be the Greek texts used by the Union Version committee, over the Westcott and Hort 1881 text. Principles of Chinese Bible Translation – as expressed in five selected versions of the New Testament and exemplified by Mt. 5:1-13 and Col 1. (Stockholm, 1987), p. 83Google Scholar.
18 Cited and quoted by Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. 207-208.
19 Zetzsche gives a detailed account of John's rejection of the invitation and the possible underlying reason of partisan rivalry involved. See Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. 206-209, esp. n.60.
20 “This reluctance to serve (in the Mandarin Committee) arose from many causes, among which may be mentioned the claims of existing work and the unwillingness of some societies to set their agents free for such a task.” Notes on the Revision of the Mandarin New Testament, The Chinese Record 1907, p. 24.
21 “Reports of Executive and Translation Committee of the Mandarin Version”, in The Chinese Recorder 1907, p. 276.
22 Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. 218-222.
23 Mateer published A Course of Mandarin Lessons in 1892, Baller published Mandarin Primer in 1887, and Goodrich published his Pocket Dictionary in 1906.
24 “This reluctance to serve arose from many causes, among which may be mentioned the claims of existing work and the unwillingness of some societies to set their agents free for such a task.” “Reports of Executive and Translation Committee of the Mandarin Version”, in The Chinese Recorder 1907, p. 23.
25 A copy of the special sheet used by Goodrich is shown by Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. 199.
26 When Chow Lien-Hwa describes the process of completion of the Mandarin Union Version, he ignores this important difference totally. Heheben Yijing Yuanze Hepinggu《和合本》譯經原則和評估 (“The translation principles and evaluation of the Union Version”), in Zishangdi shuihanyu yilai: Heheben Shengjing jiushinian《自上帝說漢語以來 - 《和合本》聖經九十年》(Ever Since God Speaks Chinese: The 90th Anniversary of the Chinese Union Version Bible) (2009) 15, pp. 3-16.
27 Zetzsche, “The Work of Lifetimes: Union Version”, in Bible in Modern China, p. 93.
28 Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. 241.
29 Chauncey Goodrich, “The Experience of a Bible Translator.” China Mission Year Book 4 (1913), pp. 378-381.
30 Letter from Mateer to Bondfield and Hykes on 17 Feb 1900, in Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. 219.
31 Zetzsche thinks that a copy was published in 1906 (The Bible in China, 272), but according to Mateer's report to the ABS in 1906, although the committee members “had hoped to complete the final revision of the whole New Testament at (the May 1906 meeting), experience in preparation during the winter, however, convinced most of (them) that the hope could not be realized.” The Annual Report of the American Bible Society (1906) p. 156.
32 The Annual Report of the American Bible Society (1906) p. 157.
33 The Annual Report of the American Bible Society (1907), cover.
34 Zetzsche reaches a similar conclusion about the Mandarin Union Version’s use of the Nanking Version and Griffith John's, judging from a comparison of John 1. Zetzsche, Bible in Modern China, p. 279.
35 For a brief review of the various issues associated with the Term Question, please see Eber, Irene, The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible – S. I. J. Schereschewsky (1831-1906), (Leiden, 1999), pp. 199-219CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
36 Fea, John, The Bible Cause – A History of the American Bible Society. (Oxford, 2016), pp. 145-146CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
37 “One of the most striking differences between the Peking and the Union Version of 1907 is the use of pronouns”, Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. 279.
38 Kramer, R. P., “On Being Polite in Chinese”, in The Bible Translator 14:4 (1963), pp. 165-173. p. 170CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 In modern Chinese the third personal pronouns are distinguishable with 他 (he), 她 (she) and 它 (it).
40 John's version tends to be very similar to the Peking Version too. His version of John 1:1-5 reads: “太初有道(道或作言下同)、道與上帝同在、道就是上帝。這道、起初與上帝同在、萬物是藉著道創造的、凡受造的、沒有一樣不是藉著道創造的、生命在道中、生命就是人的光。光照在黑暗裏、黑暗卻不認識他。”
41 The 1919 version also changes the Chinese translation of the word κατέλαβ εν from 認識 (comprehend) to 接受 (accept), perhaps reflecting the influence of a change of English base text from “comprehend” (AKJV) to “apprehend” (ERV).
42 See the discussion on the expanded uses of bei 被 in George Mak, Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, pp. 263-275.
43 As noted by Strandenaes, who finds that the Delegates Version “tends to adopt Chinese verbs and sentence constructions which render the Greek text referential meaning naturally. Therefore active verbal style is preferred to passive and non-verbal.” Principles of Chinese Bible Translation, p. 59.
44 The “Medhurst and Gützlaff” version of 1839 is comprised of three parts: the New Testament portion that was completed mostly by W. H. Medhurst, Genesis to Joshua by the committee of four (Medhurst, Gützlaff, Elijah Bridgman, and J. R. Morrison, son of Robert Morrison), and the remaining Old Testament mostly by Gützlaff. The version was originally intended to be a revision of Robert Morrison's translation by the group of four (hence some call the translation the Four Person Committee Version), but after they failed to secure support from the LMS and the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS), the project was abandoned with Gützlaff himself working to first complete the translation of the whole Bible in 1839, then labouring continuously to revise the translation and selling it to the western patrons, until he finally received support in the form or a printing fund by BFBS in 1848. For a brief history of this version please see Jessie Gregory Lutz, Opening China: Karl F. A. Gützlaff and Sino-Western Relations, 1827-1852. (Grand Rapids, 2008), pp. 157-162Google Scholar.
45 The English Revised Version is used here.
46 Somewhat contrary to Liu, who argues that the Mandarin Union Version is an excellent translation unlike others because it is able to achieve both readability and the potential to be quoted in the translation of the beatitudes. Ling, Liu Yi 劉翼凌, “Heheben Shengjing de fengge” 和合本聖經的風格 (“The Style of the Union Version Bible”) in Yijing congshu《譯經叢書》A Series on Bible Translation. (Hong Kong, 1979), pp. 23-29, pp. 27-28Google Scholar.
47 Strandenaes remarks that 饑渴慕義者 is a kind of metaphor used by the Delegates Version to handle phrases “where formal correspondence would render the meaning obscure”, without commenting that the expression was already used by Gützlaff in his 1839 translation. Principles of Chinese Bible Translation, 58.
48 Raymond Chiu claims that since the completion of the Mandarin Union Version in 1919, not only has it been regarded by the Chinese Church as the “holy book – the Word of God”, it has also been esteemed as “an literary masterpiece”. Boon, Chiu Wai 趙維本. Yijing suyuan – Xiandai wuda Zhongwen Shengjing fanyi Shi 《譯經溯源﹣現代五大中文聖經翻譯史 (Tracing Bible Translation: A History of the Translation of Five Modern Chinese Versions of the Bible), (Hong Kong, 1993)Google Scholar. Liu Yi Ling has also argued that since the wording of the Union Version fulfills the high translation standard of xin, da, ya 信、達、雅 (faithfulness to the original text, comprehensiveness in its expression, and eloquence in style), and all its issues are minor and insignificant, when it comes to “translating the Bible again, the one essential principle is to make as few changes as possible (from the Mandarin Union Version)” (italics added by this author). Liu Yi Ling 劉翼凌, “Gaiyi zhongwen Shengjing de yige jianyi” 改譯中文聖經的一個建議 (A suggestion regarding translating the Bible into Chinese again) in R. P. Kramers (ed.), Shengjing Hanyi lunwenji《聖經漢譯論文集》(Chinese Bible Translation) (Hong Kong, The Council on Christian Literature for Overseas Chinese, 1965), pp. 95 -109, pp. 108-109.
49 This version of the Peking Version was published as the first ever Chinese reference Bible (中文串珠聖經) in 1908 (Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 156). That version is the one being referenced in this article.
50 Eber, Irene, “Translating the Ancestors: S. I. J. Schereschewsky's 1875 Chinese Version of Genesis”, in Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 56, No. 2 (1993), pp. 219-233, pp, 219-220CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
51 The translation of the mistaken English word “Jehovah” first began with Lassar and Marshman (耶賀華), then Liang Fa, printing assistant of Morrison and Milne, and the first ordained Protestant pastor in China (爺火華). The translated name in the above form has remained in use till this day. For a brief history of its introduction into the Chinese Bible, please see Clement Tsz Ming Tong, The Protestant Missionaries as Bible Translators: Mission and Rivalry in China, 1807-1839. PhD dissertation, UBC (2016), pp. 63-67.
52 Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. 322-323.
53 Beale, G. K., The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids, 2013), p. 303Google Scholar.
54 Koester, Craig, “The Message to Laodicea and the Problem of Its Local Context: A Study of the Imagery in Rev. 3:14-22”, New Testament Studies, 49 (2003) pp. 407-424CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
55 The original version of 1919 reads 豫言, which is later updated to 預言.
56 Menzies, Robert P., “Anti-Charismatic Bias in the Chinese Union Version of the Bible.” Pneuma 29 (2007), pp. 86-101CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
57 From a Charismatic perspective, he is particularly concerned about how the translation of jiang dao that eludes the meaning of “spontaneous, Spirit-inspired utterances”, allowing the Chinese Christians to prefer a more reformed reading of the passage. Robert P. Menzies, “Anti-Charismatic Bias in the Chinese Union Version of the Bible.” Pneuma 29, p. 86.
58 Sometimes it is translated alternatively as 說未來的事, which is just a spelt-out version of shuo yu yan (e.g. Acts 19:6, 21:9).
59 Robert P. Menzies, “Anti-Charismatic Bias in the Chinese Union Version of the Bible.” Pneuma 29, pp. 96-97.
60 Ibid. pp. 97-98.
61 Ibid. p. 88.
62 Wacker, Grant, Heaven Below: Early Pentecostals and American Culture. (Harvard, 2001), pp. 1-4Google Scholar.
63 Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 279.