The Mandarin Union Version A Chinese Biblical Classic .

Introduction which had been used by Bible translators as the Greek textual basis for their New Testamenttranslations since the sixteenth century, but had a lower critical worth and reliability as theclosest approximation of the original text of the New Testament.8 Although the translatorsof the Mandarin Union Version exercised the discretion granted to them by the ShanghaiConference to follow the reading of the Textus Receptus on a few occasions, such asthe ending of the Lord’s Prayer in the Gospel of Matthew ( : ), the Greek text underlyingthe English Revised Version proved to be the major Greek textual basis for the New Testament of the Mandarin Union Version.9 This gave the Mandarin Union Version, as well asthe other Union Versions, a place among the earliest Chinese Bible versions of which theNew Testament translations largely follow the readings deviating from the Textus Receptus.At the same time, the translators of the Mandarin Union Version stood on the shoulders ofgiants, working on the basis of the work achieved by earlier generations of Mandarin Bibletranslators. According to the resolution of the Shanghai Conference on the translationof the Mandarin Union Version, its translators, in addition to consulting the Greek and Hebrew biblical texts, “shall make constant and careful use” of the following Mandarin Bibleversions: The Nanking Version ( / , New Testament), the Peking Version ( ,New Testament), Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky’s ( - ) Mandarin Old Testament ( ) and Griffith John’s ( - ) Mandarin New Testament ( ).10 IreneEber’s and Lihi Yariv-Laor’s textual studies suggest that the Old Testament of the MandarinUnion Version was much indebted to Schereschewsky’s Mandarin Old Testament, in view oftheir similarities in style and the use of terms.11 As for the New Testament, based on histextual analysis of Matthew : - and the first chapter of the Epistle to the Colossians,Thor Strandenaes concluded that “in both the adoption of general vocabulary and individualsolutions”, the Mandarin Union Version “shows dependency” on the renowned New Testament translation in literary Chinese known as the Delegates’ Version ( ), which was indeedthe source text of the Nanking Version.12 On the other hand, Jost Zetzsche argued in his seminal work The Bible in China that the New Testament translators of the Mandarin Union Version primarily consulted the Peking Version, which was the Mandarin New Testament mostwidely used in China before the Mandarin Union Version, “as far as Chinese versions are8George Kam Wah Mak, “‘Laissez-faire’ or Active Intervention? The Nature of the British and Foreign BibleSociety’s Patronage of the Translation of the Chinese Union Versions”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , ( ), pp. - .9Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May - , , p. xliii;“Meeting of the Board of Revisers”, Chinese Recorder and Missionary Journal ( ), p. ; Mak, “‘Laissez-faire’ orActive Intervention?”, p. ; Mai Jinhua 麥金華 (George Kam Wah Mak), “Chuantong yu zhengju zhi zheng:Heheben Xinyue Xilawen diben wenti chutan �文底本問題初探”,Shengjing niankan 聖經年刊 ( ), pp. - ; Mai Jinhua 麥金華 (George Kam Wah Mak), Daying ShengshuGonghui yu Guanhua Heheben Shengjing fanyi �譯 (Hong Kong, ),pp. - .10Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May - , , p. xliii.For a brief overview of these Mandarin Bible versions, see Mak, Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as theNational Language of China, pp. - . For more details, see Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. - , - , - .11Irene Eber, The Jewish Bishop and the Chinese Bible: S.I.J. Schereschewsky ( - ) (Leiden, Boston and Köln, ), pp. - ; Lihi Yariv-Laor, “Linguistic Aspects of Translating the Bible into Chinese”, in Bible in ModernChina, (ed.) Eber et al., pp. - .12Thor Strandenaes, Principles of Chinese Bible Translation as Expressed in Five Selected Versions of the New Testamentand Exemplified by Mt : - and Col (Stockholm, ), pp. , , - , - .Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Loyola Notre Dame, on 16 Dec 2021 at 01:35:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186320000140

George Kam Wah Makconcerned”.13 While Zetzsche’s argument has been generally accepted by subsequent scholars, it was predominantly based on evidence from the first chapter of the Gospel of John inthe Mandarin Union Version. This helps explain why Zetzsche’s The Bible in China attractedcriticism from Marián Gálik, who said he would have preferred to read in it “more textualexamples, linguistic and stylistic analyses of the different versions”.14Clement Tsz Ming Tong’s article complements Zetzsche’s work with an analysis of thetextual features of the Mandarin Union Version focusing on examples from biblical booksother than the Gospel of John, such as the Gospel of Mark, the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the Book of Revelation. Tong’s textual analysis shows that there is a highlevel of similarities between the Mandarin Union Version and the Peking Version in termsof style, syntax and diction, which corroborates Zetzsche’s argument. Tong’s article alsohighlights that it is important to consider the use and reliance of pre-existing MandarinBible versions by the translators of the Mandarin Union Version, as this will help clarify translational and hermeneutic theories and hypotheses associated with the Mandarin UnionVersion. Tong pointed out, for example, that Robert Menzies once hypothesised that theGreek word προwητεύω ( propheteuō ,̄ to prophesy) is rendered as shuo yuyan 說豫言 (toutter about things of the future, e.g. Acts : ) or xianzhi jiangdao 先知講道 (propheticpreaching, e.g. Corinthians : ) in the Mandarin Union Version under the influence ofthe perspective on prophecy in the Reformed tradition on its key translators.15 Yet, Menzies’s hypothesis could not stand, as the Chinese translations of the Greek word actuallycome from the Peking Version.André Lefevere, a pioneer of the field of translation studies, once reminded us that “translations are not made in a vacuum. Translators function in a given culture at a given time. Theway they understand themselves and their culture is one of the factors that may influence theway in which they translate”.16 In the case of the Mandarin Union Version, we may argue thatChinese culture was not its missionary translators’ own culture. However, since Chinese culture was the culture in which their biblical translation would circulate, it can be regarded asthe “given culture” in which they functioned, and their understanding of it no doubt had animpact on their translation decisions.Tsung-I Hwang’s article offers us examples of how the translation of the Mandarin UnionVersion was made under the influence of Confucianism (or Ruism, the term used byHwang), which was understood by the translators as the source of moral values and socialcode in Chinese society in their day. According to Hwang, Matthew : , Matthew : and Romans : are biblical verses related to Christian soteriology and the concept ofmoral transformation by God’s grace. Yet, the Confucian conception of self-cultivationand of reciprocity made it difficult for the Chinese people to accept that salvation and sanctification are gifts from God which have nothing to do with one’s morality, worthiness orZetzsche, The Bible in China, p. .Gálik, “A Comment on Three Western Books on the Bible in Modern and Contemporary China”, in Influence, Translation, and Parallels, pp. , .15Robert P. Menzies, “Anti-Charismatic Bias in the Chinese Union Version of the Bible”, Pneuma ( ),pp. - .16André Lefevere, “The Role of Ideology in the Shaping of a Translation”, in Translation/History/Culture:A Source Book, (ed.) André Lefevere (London and New York, ), p. .1314Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Loyola Notre Dame, on 16 Dec 2021 at 01:35:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186320000140

Introduction rewards for his or her personal effort. Considering this, we should not be surprised that, asrevealed in Hwang’s article, the translators of the Mandarin Union Version rendered thosethree biblical verses in a way suggesting that one’s willpower and effort are conditions forsalvation or qualify one to be a Christian. It could be said that the translators did so inorder to achieve compatibility with the aforementioned Confucian concepts at the expenseof accuracy.The Mandarin Union Version is, in Zetzsche’s words, “as much a product of the Westernmissionaries as of Chinese translators”.17 The Chinese co-workers of the missionary translators of the Mandarin Union Version played an important part in its translation process. Theycooperated with the missionary translators to prepare the draft translations and corrections,ensuring that the language and style of the translated text were acceptable to its Chinesereaders.18 Zetzsche, who did an admirable job of identifying the names of and backgroundinformation about several Chinese Protestants participating in the Mandarin Union Versiontranslation project, argued that the Mandarin Union Version was “the first translationwhere the translation committee involved equal participation of foreigners and Chinese”.19Although the Chinese co-workers were rarely mentioned in the reports for the first fewyears of the translation project, as the translation work progressed, their significance wasincreasingly valued by the missionary translators. Eventually, after Chauncey Goodrich( - ) of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions became thechairman of the Old Testament translation committee in , they were given an equalvote with the missionary translators in decisions relating to the final text of the translation.20Nonetheless, we should avoid overestimating the status of the Chinese co-workers in theMandarin Union Version translation project. As pointed out by Strandenaes, Bible and missionary societies did not consider them as of equal importance with the missionary translators, which is indicated by the limited personal information about the Chinese co-workersprovided in the published reports on the translation work of the Mandarin Union Version.21Stuart Vogel’s article further reminds us of this point. Comparing the role of Chinese Protestants in producing the Mandarin Union Version and the Southern Min (Minnan hua 閩南話)Bible version, Vogel observed that in both cases the missionary translators took control of thetranslation process by retaining the authority to define the theological meaning of the translated text. However, whereas the missionary translators of the Mandarin Union Version considered their Chinese co-workers as ‘assistants’, Thomas Barclay ( - ) of the EnglishPresbyterian Mission, who was head of a team translating the New Testament into SouthernMin from to , referred to his Chinese co-workers as ‘co-translators’.According to Vogel, the different status of the Chinese Protestants engaged in these twotranslation projects, which overlapped for some time, could be explained by two factors.17Jost Oliver Zetzsche, “The Missionary and the Chinese ‘Helper’: A Re-Appraisal of the Chinese Role in theCase of Bible Translation in China”, Jindai Zhongguo Jidujiaoshi yanjiu jikan 近代中國基督教史研究集刊 (Journal ofthe History of Christianity in Modern China) ( ), p. .18Zetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. - , - .19Zetzsche, “The Missionary and the Chinese ‘Helper’”, p. .20Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. .21Thor Strandenaes, “Anonymous Bible Translators: Native Literati and the Translation of the Bible into Chinese, - ”, in Sowing the Word: The Cultural Impact of the British and Foreign Bible Society - , (ed.) StephenBatalden, Kathleen Cann, and John Dean (Sheffield, ), pp. - .Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Loyola Notre Dame, on 16 Dec 2021 at 01:35:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186320000140

George Kam Wah MakThe first factor is the extent of their role. Barclay’s Chinese co-workers were theologicallytrained and educated speakers of Southern Min, while the Chinese co-workers of the missionary translators of the Mandarin Union Version were selected on the basis of their knowledge of Mandarin. Barclay’s Chinese co-workers could play a greater role than theircounterparts in the Mandarin Union Version translation project in analysing the sourcetext, transferring the source text’s content into the target language, and improving thestyle, idiom and literary expression of the translated text. The second factor is the relationshipbetween the missionary translator and his Chinese co-worker. Barclay’s Chinese co-workerswere not hired by him but formally appointed by the synod of the Chinese Presbyterianchurch in Fujian 福建. By contrast, the missionary translators of the Mandarin Union Versionand their Chinese co-workers were in an employer-employee relationship. Different lines ofauthority led to the missionary translators’ different perceptions of the role of their Chineseco-workers in the two translation projects.The Mandarin Union Version took nearly three decades to complete. The process was solong that only one of the translators, i.e. Goodrich, was part of the process from the verybeginning and still alive when the complete translation was published.22 It is noteworthythat at the outset, the Mandarin Union Version was not considered to be of as lasting or historical impact as the other Union Versions. This was mainly because Mandarin was not yetregarded as the language of literature in late nineteenth-century China, even though thenecessity of a Mandarin Bible was not questioned at that time, as the sales of MandarinBible editions already accounted for the major part of Protestant Bible distribution inChina no later than the s.23However, it is the Mandarin Union Version, instead of the other Union Versions, that haseventually become “the most successful of all Chinese Bible translations past or present”.24The timing of the Mandarin Union Version’s publication coincided with the May FourthNew Culture Movement, which advocated the replacement of literary Chinese with baihua白話, a Mandarin-based form of written Chinese, as the standard written medium andthe creation of a new Chinese literature written in baihua. This provided a favourablecondition for the circulation and reception of the Mandarin Union Version, which was considered by Zhou Zuoren 周作人 ( - ), an important figure in the movement, as “anexceptionally good piece of baihua writing” of the day that could facilitate the reformation ofChinese language and literature.25 Thus, it is not surprising that the Mandarin Union Versionbecame the most popular Chinese translation of the Bible in Republican China shortlyafter its publication. In , for example, more than eighty-five per cent of the ChineseBibles, New Testaments and biblical portions issued by the BFBS in China were in theZetzsche, The Bible in China, pp. , , ; Jost Zetzsche, “The Work of Lifetimes: Why the Union Version Took Nearly Three Decades to Complete”, in Bible in Modern China, (ed.) Eber et al., p. .23Zetzsche, The Bible in China, p. ; Zetzsche, “The Work of Lifetimes”, pp. - ; Mak, Protestant BibleTranslation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, p. .24Zetzsche, “The Work of Lifetimes”, p. . Indeed, nowadays the Mandarin Union Version is also widelyknown as the Chinese Union Version (or in Chinese as Heheben 和合本, which means ‘the Union Version’), sinceit is the only one among the Union Versions that is still in use. Christie Chui-Shan Chow’s article in this specialissue uses the term ‘the Chinese Union Bible’ or ‘the Union Bible’ to refer to the Mandarin Union Version.25Zhou Zuoren 周作人, “Shengshu yu Zhongguo wenxue 聖書與中國文學”, Xiaoshuo yuebao 小說月報 ,no. ( ), p. .22Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Loyola Notre Dame, on 16 Dec 2021 at 01:35:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186320000140

Introduction Mandarin Union Version. The percentage rose to over ninety in .26 It was estimated thatninety-nine per cent of Chinese Protestants used the Mandarin Union Version at the outset ofthe s.27The work of the BFBS, the ABS and the NBSS as the publishers and distributors of theMandarin Union Version also contributed to its success in Republican China. As decided bythe Shanghai Conference , the Mandarin Union Version was their common propertyowing to their patronage of its translation work; each of them had the right to publishsuch editions of the Mandarin Union Version as it may choose.28 Throughout the years,these three Bible societies published various editions of the whole Bible, the New Testament, the Old Testament, and portions thereof in the Mandarin Union Version to target different audiences; millions of copies of these Bible editions were placed in the hands of theChinese through the Bible societies’ distribution networks.29Among the editions of the Mandarin Union Version published by the Bible societies werethe NBSS’s annotated editions of its portions. In the s, the NBSS became the first Biblesociety to publish Chinese editions of the Gospels and Acts with annotations giving “someexplanation of words, terms and place-names which were completely unfamiliar to the nonChristian reader”. These Bible editions were published first with the texts of Griffith John’sEasy Wenli ( ) and Mandarin translations of the New Testament, and later with that ofthe New Testament of the Mandarin Union Version as soon as it was ready in . Thanks totheir usefulness as evangelistic tools, the NBSS’s annotated Chinese Gospels and Acts werewell-received by Protestant missionaries in China, helping the NBSS, despite being a laterentrant into Bible work in late Qing and Republican China, to be a Bible society comparable with the BFBS and the ABS in terms of significance for the China mission field. Thesuccess of the NBSS’s annotated Chinese Gospels and Acts even led the BFBS to follow inthe NBSS’s footsteps and start publishing similar editions in the s with the texts of theHigh Wenli, Easy Wenli and Mandarin Union Versions as well as the Cantonese Bible.30As indicated by George Kam Wah Mak’s article in this special issue, the annotated editions of the Mandarin Union Version published by the Bible societies were not limited tothose of the Gospels and Acts. In , the NBSS published an annotated edition of Proverbs in the Mandarin Union Version, which was the first annotated edition of a biblicalbook in the Old Testament published in Chinese by a Bible society. Mak argued that annotations which provide the reader with historical and cultural information and explanations ofthe meanings of the figures of speech in Proverbs, together with the familiarity of the Chinese people with short and pithy sayings, contributed to the favourable reception of the NBSSBritish and Foreign Bible Society China Agency Report for and , BFBS Archives.William Hudspeth, The Bible and China (London, ), p. .28Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at Shanghai, May - , , pp.xliii-xliv.29For information about the editions of the Mandarin Union Version published by the three Bible societies, seeCai Jintu 蔡錦圖 (Daniel Kam-to Choi), Shengjing zai Zhongguo: Fu Zhongwen Shengjing lishi mulu 聖經在中國：附中文聖經歷史目錄 (Hong Kong, ), pp. - ; For statistics on Chinese Bible publishing and circulationin Republican China, see Mak, Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, pp. - .30George Kam Wah Mak, “To Add or not to Add? The British and Foreign Bible Society’s Defence of the‘Without Note or Comment’ Principle in Late Qing China”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , ( ),pp. - .2627Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Loyola Notre Dame, on 16 Dec 2021 at 01:35:50, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available athttps://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186320000140

George Kam Wah Makannotated Proverbs in the Mandarin Union Version, which in turn further promoted thecirculation of the biblical text of the Mandarin Union Version.Discussing how a biblical translation could be a classic translation, Sijbolt Noorda rightlyargued that “classics are results of a future reception process, a reputation to be acquired”.31The Mandarin Union Version was no exception. Several articles in this special issue explorehow the Mandarin Union Version has been received and used within Chinese Protestantcommunities, helping us to understand the process leading to its becoming a classic biblicaltranslation. In his article, Wai Luen Kwok pointed out that Watchman Nee (Ni Tuosheng倪柝聲, - ) and Wang Mingdao 王明道 ( - ), who were important conservative, independent Chinese Protestant leaders in the twentieth century, had a low opinionof Protestant missionaries in China. Nee criticised them for bringing denominationalism,which was unbiblical in his view, to China, while Wang objected to their domination ofthe Protestant church in China and selection of incompetent and unfaithful Chinese tobe co-workers. On the other hand, they recognised the Mandarin Union Version as an outstanding and up-to-date Bible version, despite its nature as a missionary biblical translation.This, together with their emphasis on the Bible’s supreme authority for Christian life andBible reading as a spiritual practice, made the Mandarin Union Version serve as the coresource of their spiritual and moral teachings. Kwok’s article

the English Revised Version proved to be the major Greek textual basis for the New Testa-ment of the Mandarin Union Version.9 This gave the Mandarin Union Version, as well as the other Union Versions, a pla