A Translation or A Revision? The Mandarin Union Version and its use of the Chinese base texts
CLEMENT TSZ MING TONG
Abstract
When the plan to translate the Union Version in Guanhua (Mandarin) was announced at the Conference in Shanghai, it was decided that all three existing Mandarin versions—the Nanking Version, the Peking Version, and Griffith John’s translation of - 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, years after its completion.
The Dominance of the Chinese Union Version Bible
Between the publication of the Marshman and Lassar Bible in and the completion of the Union Version editions in ,1 there had been more than major versions of the Chinese Bible translated, including just the New Testament or the entire Bible. The highly vibrant translation activities happening within that ninety seven years were remarkable, though often the motivation was fuelled by dissatisfaction of the previous versions
1The final publication of the Union Version in 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.
JRAS, Series , , (), pp. – © The Royal Asiatic Society doi:./S
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 25 Sep 2021 at 13:04:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186319000324 Clement Tsz Ming Tong
(e.g. W. H. Medhurst’s attempts to revise Robert Morrison’s), or as a result of a disagreement among translators and societies (e.g. Elijah Bridgman and Michael Culbertson translating their own version, after leaving the Delegates Version committee). The publication of the Union Version, more specifically the one in Mandarin Chinese, seemed to finally settle this restlessness, providing the Chinese Protestant communities a version that most could finally identify with.2 From to , millions of copies of parts of or the entire Union Version were distributed in China.3 The next major Chinese translations of the whole Bible, the Catholic Studium Biblicum Version《思高譯本》and Lu Zhen Zhong yiben《呂振中譯本》(The Translation by Lu Zhen Zhong), would only appear five dec- ades later in and respectively, and as a whole only new versions of the whole Chinese Bible were completed from to .4 One Chinese writer loudly claimed in that “right now % of the Protestants are using (the Mandarin Union Version)”.5 The statement was fairly accurate, because according to a more recent study by the Amity Press, million Chinese Bibles were distributed in China from to , and most of them were still the Mandarin Union Version.6 The unfading popularity and importance of the Mandarin Union Version also means that there is a strong scholarly attention to the version, whether it is regarding its history, trans- lational and linguistic characteristics, hermeneutical features, or influences on the Chinese language and culture.7 However, few of these studies have taken into the account the use and reliance of the Chinese base texts by the Mandarin Union Version committee members, and simply assume that the popular version was translated from the English base text (the English Revised Version) and the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. This article exam- ines the history of the completion of the Mandarin Union Version, and argues that because of the way the tentative edition of the version was created and the many obstacles the commit- tee members faced, the version was in many ways a revision of the Peking Version. The article also explores the major patterns of revision used by the committee members, and argues for the importance of understanding the relationship between the Mandarin Union Version and its Chinese base text in order to conduct an in-depth study of the features of the version.
2“What is difficult to fathom is that, there has been an unceasing call for indigenization within the Chinese churches since s. 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, ), pp. -; “Published in , the Mandarin Union Version (Heheben 和合 本) has become the most popular and influential translation of the Bible in the Chinese-speaking world”, George Mak, Protestant Bible Translation and Mandarin as the National Language of China, (Leiden, ), p. . 3Joseph Hong, “Revision of the Chinese Union Version Bible (CUV): Assessing the challenges from an his- torical perspective”, The Bible Translator, (), (pp. -), p. . 4I’m only including the translations of the entire Bible here: Sigao yiben《思高譯本》(The Studium Biblicum Version)of, Lu Zhen Zhong yiben《呂振中譯本》 (The Translation by Lu Zhen Zhong) of , Dangdai Shengjing《當代聖經》(The Contemporary Bible)of, Xiandai Zhongwen yiben《現代中文譯本》(Today’s Chin- ese Bible)of, and Shengjing Xinyiben 《聖經新譯本》(The Chinese New Version)of. 5Yan Lu Yi 顏路裔, Shengjing zhe bensh《聖經這本書》 (This book - the Bible) (Hong Kong, ), p. . 6Joseph Hong, “Revision of the Chinese Union Version Bible (CUV): Assessing the challenges from an his- torical perspective”,p.. 7George 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. -.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. University of Athens, on 25 Sep 2021 at 13:04:57, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1356186319000324 A Translation or A Revision?
The Historical Context
The decision to come up with three editions of a new Union Version of the Chinese Bible was confirmed and announced at the general conference held in Shanghai in . Different committees were to be selected to work on the Wenli (Classical Chinese) version, Easy Wenli (low Classical) version, and Guanhua (Mandarin) version8 independently. Judging from the historical perspective, the Mandarin Union Version was never considered a brand new trans- lation to begin with. Unlike the Wenli and Easy Wenli versions, the Shanghai Conference did not use the term “translation” or “translators” when reporting on the Mandarin version, but instead used “revision” and “revisers”. The first statement of the report reads: “That they select and secure the services of a corps of competent scholars for the work of revision, consist- ing of not less than seven men, to be know as the Committee on Mandarin Revision” (italicised by this author)9, different from both reports for the high and simple Wenli versions, which state “the work of securing a translation of the whole Bible”.10 Zetzsche believes that it was because of the predominant importance of the Peking Version, that the translators felt that the new Mandarin version could be completed by simply revising the translation.11 The revision committee obviously had a high view of Schereschewsky’s Old Testament transla- tion of , because when it came to finalizing the list of Chinese base texts to be used for the Old Testament portion, Schereschewsky’s version was the only one selected. As for the New Testament portion, however, three base texts would be selected at the end, as stated in the rd statement of the Report: “the Committee on Revision shall make constant and careful use of the union Mandarin version of the New Testament, prepared in Peking and widely employed in the Mandarin-speaking regions of China, of the recent revision prepared by Dr John (Griffith John), and of the Medhurst version formerly in extensive use in Central China (the Nanking Version)”.12 There appeared to be some struggle for the committee to agree on this point, as D. Z. Sheffield reports:
The chief discussion in the committee centred around the rd section. There were those on the committee who felt that the union Mandarin version produced in Peking (the Peking Version) with great care and labor after eight to ten years of work, ought to be made the basis of the revi- sion; but after full discussion it was decided to bring in the report in this form” (i.e. using all three Mandarin NT translations, instead of just one).13
The main reason for this compromise was likely due to be the insistence of John Archibald of the NBSS (National Bible Society of Scotland), the sole sponsor of Griffith John’s transla- tions, who stood out in opposing a revision of the Mandarin translation but suggested an
8Guanhua, 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 Clement Tong, “Foreignized translation and the case against ‘Chin- ese vernacular fiction’”, MTM Journal, (), pp. -, pp. -. 9Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, held at Shanghai May -, . (Shanghai, ) p. xlii. 10Ibid, pp. xl-xli. 11Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version or The Culmination of Protestant Missionary B