This is a review from the October 1954 Bible Translator page 184 about a
translation into Chinese from Greek. What is significant is the parts
about John 1:18 and John 1:1. Concerning John 1:18 he says that there is
strong textual evidence for only-begotten god but the rendering of the
Revised Version is perferred. And he renders John 1:1 3rd clause
between "God" and "divine" but the reviewer has difficulty with it
because it can give rise to speculation about the trinity.
On Lu Chen-Chung's
New Testament Translation
In the October 1953 issue of The Bible Translator there
appeared a review of the revised draft of Rev. Lu Chen-Chung's
new translation of the New Testament in Chinese, by the Rev. A. H.
Jowett Murray. The reviewer first sketches the history of the
translation known as the Union Version of the Mandarin Bible, which up
to this day is used by the Protestant Chinese churches. After outlining
some of the weaknesses inherent in the Union Version he proceeds to give
by comparison an evaluation of Mr. Lu's work.
The present article intends to present some results of a discussion
which took place in Hong Kong during part of 1953 and the beginning of
1954 between Rev. Lu, Mr. D. Lancashire of the Hong Kong Bible House,
and myself. Taking Dr. Nida's Translator's Commentary on Selected
Passages as a guide, we compared carefully the texts of Mark 1 and
John 1:1-18 in the Union Version with Mr. Lu's Revised Draft. We realize
that this is a very small portion of the New Testament to take as a
basis for definite conclusions. We feel, however, that this basis may be
sufficient to begin with, for giving some idea of the main differences
in the two translations. It is needless to say, moreover, that in the
course of the discussions we examined many other New Testament passages,
so that the basis actually is a little wider than it would seem.
In the following analysis we shall make use of the division as in the
Translator's Commentary between (1) textual, (2) exegetical, (3)
lexical and (4) syntactical problems. Though it can be argued that these
divisions sometimes cannot actually be maintained in translation
practice, yet in the main they form a very workable scheme and help to
systematize the translator's thinking.
1. The only serious textual problem we encountered tends to show a basic
difference between group translation and translation by one man:
John 1:18, monogenesevidence for
this reading, but on grounds of internal evidence many translations read
huios instead of theos. So does the UV1, doubtless
following the authority of RV: 'The only begotten Son". L. however,
chooses to follow Nestle's text which has the reading: monogenes
theos,.......,and so he has: shen, i-ko t'e-sheng-che, 'god, an
only begotten one'. The possible emendations are placed by him in a
foot-note. L. agreed that in an official revision it might be better to
revert to huios in the text, placing the alternatives in a
footnote, if the revision committee so insists.
No doubt the UV translators felt bound in many instances to follow the
English translation, especially the RV, since English up to recent times
was practically the only foreign language widely used in China.
Consequently, a comparison between Chinese and English translations
would be only natural. Mr. Lu feels freer in this respect, and at the
same time this problem indicates an independent indigenous approach to
the original texts.
1 The following abbreviations will he uses: RV _ Revised Version
(English); L= Revised Draft of Lu's translation; L1-First Draft of Lu'
translation; TC _ Translator's Commentary; UV Mandarin Bible, Union
Version.
More instances of such a direct and independent approach are to be seen
in various exegetical points:
Mark 1: 22, RV: "And not as the scribes", UV: pu hsiang wen-shih.
The Greek may be a little ambiguous here, the usual exegesis being:
the people wondered at the fact that the way Jesus was teaching them was
as of a man who had an authoritative opinion, but it was not at all the
way of teaching they were accustomed to from the scribes; cf. also TC. L
translates: ch'eeh1 pu shih tso-wei ching-hseeh-shih,
'but not as (in the capacity of) a scribe', which offers a
very attractive alternative. L agreed, however,so followed by the UV, better preserves what ambiguity there
is in the Greek.
John 1: 2, RV: 'The same was in the beginning with
God.' . This verse is usually taken as a combination of the first two
clauses of verse 1 in a different perspective, cf. TC. Hence it is
translated as an independent sentence. UV conforms to this use, and so
does L1. L, however, follows an exegesis offered by C.C. Torrey who
takes it as a temporal subordinate clause to verse 3, adding -ti
shih-hou 'when...', so: 'When the word was in the beginning with
God. all things were made...' This is an extreme example of the relative
freedom of an individual translation, and L fully realizes that it may
not stand the test of the congregation.
One novel translation by Mr. Le may well rake up the century-old
question how to render the word 'God' in Chinese. As is well known,
there are two trends in the Protestant churches, one using throughout
the generic term shen, 'god', 'spirit', and the other using the
old designation Shangti, 'Lord-on-high', for 'God', retaining the
term shen for 'god', 'gods', 'divine'.
John 1:1, ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
Usually the second theos is also translated 'God', but there is
also an interpretation taking this word rather to mean 'divine' here. L
always renders 'God' by Shangti, but here he translates the
second theos by shen, 'god'. He thus seems to have the
advantage of holding a middle position between 'God' and 'divine', but
on the other hand this translation may give rise to undesirable
speculations about the Trinity, suggesting subordination within it. The
difficulty, according to L, lies in the fact that Shangti seems
too narrow a term here, although in the formula 'God the Father, God the
Son, God the Holy Spirit' the term Shangti is used throughout.
We cannot pursue t is involved. Much
depends on the development within the Chinese churches. This example,
however, again shows the originality of a one-man translation as Mr.
Lu's, and the great care he devotes to problems of this nature.
3. We are nearing the field of lexical problems here, and it is
especially in this field that one is struck by the painstaking care and
precision of Mr. Lu's endeavour.
First, a great consistency in rendering the same Greek term by the same
Chinese term. The UV is often more pliable here, paying comparatively
greater stress on the context:
Mark 1:10, 12, 23, pneuma. In verses 10 and 12 UV has both times
sheng-ling, 'Holy Spirit', for the sake of clarity. L both times
has ling only, but he agrees that, while in verse 10 the context
is clear enough, the addition of sheng in verse 12 may after all
be necessary for a clear understanding in Chinese. In verse 23, speaking
of an 'unclean spirit', UV renders 'spirit' by kuei, 'devil'. L
is consistent here in translating ling. The qualification
'unclean' is sufficient to indicate the spirit's nature.
An important feature of Mr. Lu's translation is his attempt to render
different Greek terms by different Chinese terms, even in those cases
where the Greek terms express practically the same idea:
Mark 1: 5, chora, UV has here ti, the general
word for 'earth' or 'territory'. L has ti-ch'o,1
suggesting a more limited region, for chora: he
reserves the word ti for a translation of ge,
'earth'.
Sometimes Mr. Lu's differentiation seems less apt, because a natural
variety of Greek words for the same idea is not always covered by the
same variety in Chinese:
Mark 1: 34, nosos, rendered ping, 'illness' in
the UV. L wishes to distinguish between/I> because this latter word occurs far more
frequently in the New Testament, L assigns to it the word
ping, the common term for 'illness', while for nosos
he reserves an unfamiliar term chi-k'u, 'affliction'. L
agrees that in this case it may be better to use ping or
chi-ping, a synonym, for both terms.
In several cases there is room for improvement of the UV rendering of
Greek and ideas behind them:
Mark 1: 15, kairos, RV: "the time", UV accordingly:
shih-ch'i,1 'the time' in the sense of a fixed period of time. L
has attempted to render the force of the Greek original:
shih-chi, 'turning-point in time' or 'crisis'. The only drawback
is perhaps that L cannot combine this expression with the verb 'to
fulfil', so he has to say: 'the kairos has come'.
Mark 1: 22, grammateis, RV: "scribes", UV:
wen-shih. This is a very general term, but not actually in
great use. L has: ching-hsoeh-shih, 'gentlemen who are
versed in the canonical scriptures'. which seems a very apt
description of what the scribes actually were.
Mark 1: 38, komopolis, RV: "town", UV:
hsiang-ts'un, 'village'. L has: hsiang-chen, a more
precise definition of a country township, but a less commonly used
expression.
If the Chinese equivalent of a Greek word now in use is not exact
enough, Mr. Lu does not hesitate to coin new terms:
Mark 1: 2, "prophet", UV:
hsien-chih, an old classical term meaning 'one who foreknows'. L
has: 'divine-word-man' (this example was also given by Mr. Jowett
Murray). It cannot be denied that this term gives a good idea of what a
prophet really was in the Biblical world. It remains to be seen,
however, whether or not such a new term will be accepted. In the West
many people on hearinne who
foreknows, one who foretells the future', and this was true of Biblical
times too. The question is here whether an already familiar term should
gradually be filled with new content, or the radically different notion
should be expressed in direct translation, involving the use of an
unfamiliar term.
John 1:13, sarx. Cf. the discussion about this word published in
The Bible Translator of October 1952. UV takes the course of
interpreting the word according to the context, and accordingly
translates thelomatos sarkos here by: ch'ing-yu, 'sexual
desire, 'lust'. L takes the other course, everywhere retaining the idea
of 'flesh'. Here he has: jou-t'i ti i-ssu, 'the will of the
flesh'. L makes, however, a subtle distinction between jou-t'i
which he used when indicating 'flesh' in a more depraved sense, and
jou-shen for 'flesh' in a neutral sense, e.g. John 1:14, where L
has: tao-ch'eng-le jou-shen, "the Word became flesh".
The fact that Mr. Lu sometimes coins new terms does not necessarily
mean that he will go to any length in coming as close to the Greek as
possible. He fully realizes that the terms he uses, if not idiomatic,
have at least to be clear. And if there is a possibility of using an
already existing term he will not try to coin a new one. This is to be
seen in his criticism of a number of existing specially coined
Christian terms, for which he substitutes terms which have been in use
in Chinese language and literature:
evaggelion is commonly rendered by fu-yin, 'sound of
blessing'. This is a specially coined term used by Christians only.
It has a similar specific use as the English word 'Gospel', but the
association with the meaning 'good news' tends to be lost. Besides,
the component word fu, 'blessing', 'good fortune', may
introduce misleading materialistic ideas which are not there Hence L prefers the term chia-yin,
'good, auspicious sound', which term already exists, while moreover
it comes closer to the meaning of the Greek term.
Mark 1:38 et al. kerusso. When used transitively this word is
rendered in UV by ch'uan, 'to transmit, to hand down'. When
intransitive it is rendered ch'uan-tao, 'to hand down the Way'
(tao being a special Chinese concept for the True Way, the Truth,
the True Principle). Again it is L's aim to come closer to the Greek,
hence in both cases he uses the term hsuan-ch'uan, propagate,
propaganda', nowadays a very common word. But at the same time he thus
de-specializes the term and puts it again in the midst of reality,
showing with a new freshness the force of the Greek word.
It remains to be seen, with all these new terms, just how far
tradition will be overcome. Mr. Lu rightly is of the opinion that now is
still the time to endeavour such changes in vocabulary. The Chinese
churches are, comparatively speaking, young, and they have therefore a
greater flexibility of form. It would in comparison be a much harder job
to make such changes in any Western Christian language, trying to
discard time-honoured Christian words and replacing them with
expressions which may be more apt to touch the hearts of modern people
for whom Christian tradition, with its quaint beauty of vocabulary, has
become an obstacle rather than an instrument to their perception of the
truth.
One aspect of the changes Mr. Lu attempts to bring about in the lexical
field is closely connected with the development of the Chinese National
Language during the last four decades. It is the increasing use of
abstract nouns, due to the impact of Western languages and their way of
thinking:
John 1:16, pleroma, UV: feng-man ti en-tien, 'full or
bountiful grace'. UV had to add en-tienthat time feng-man could only have an attributive
function L has: Feng-man which is now used by itself for
the abstract concept of 'fulness'.
Sometimes Mr. Lu is very much in the vanguard of this trend towards
using abstract nouns, again with the aim of approaching the Greek syntax
as closely as possible:
John 1:14, aletheia, UV usually has chen-li, 'true
principle', but alternates it with chen-tao, the true Way' or
tao-li, 'the principle of the (true) Way'. L is afraid that these
terms may bring about confused theological thinking because of the term
li and its Chinese philosophical implications (it is the abstract
principle of light, of spirit and of goodness, in the system of the
still influential Sung Neo-Confucianism). In many places he retains the
term chen-li, but especially in those places where the equation
with a person is made he introduces chen-shih, 'the real thing,
reality'. This term is in common use in an attributive function, but not
as an abstract noun. By means of half-brackets and a note: or
chen-li L wishes to help the reader understand that it is an
abstract noun.
Mark 1:44, peri tou katharismou sou, RV: "for thy
cleansing", UV: yin-wei ni chieh-ching-le because you have been
cleansed'. L follows the pattern of the Greek: wei-le ni ti
chieh-ching, using chieh-ching as an abstract noun. But he
admits that it is perhaps too much of a burden to the flow of the
context, and he would rather have now: wci-le ni chieh-ching ti shih,
for the matter of your being cleansed.
187