Continued:
III. Observations on the Conundrum
A. “There was a sharp rivalry (though never expressed to each other personally), including an unfair accusation of plagiarism against Marshman by some of Morrison’s colleagues.”[10] However, both versions provided a way for Christians of the time to study God’s word, and a foundation for future, better translations.
B. In later years the controversy arose about the best word in Chinese for God. Some translations use Shang Ti (上帝, Wade-Giles Romanization; Shang Di in Pinyan Romanization), which is the name of the original monotheistic God of Chinese religion, rather than Shen (神), used by Morrison and Marshman.[11] In fact, in China today one may buy the Chinese Union Version in either format.
C. If one advocates only versions translated from the KJV, one would choose the version done by the Presbyterian missionary. On the other hand, if one wants the correct word for baptism, one would use the Marshman version!
D. Both versions were criticized. Rather than disappointment, this brings up the thought that neither team was able to effectively use Chinese translation partners because of the Chinese legal restrictions of the day.
E. Translating “baptism” with a word meaning immersion as was the policy of the Serampore missionaries is more accurate and faithful to the original. However, it limits the circulation of the finished translation, since those who believe in sprinkling as the proper form of baptism will not use it. The opposite is also true. Therefore, the translator must carefully decide ahead of time how widely he foresees the translation being used.
F. If a Bible translator is worried about the opinions and criticisms of those around him or her, the translation will not be finished. The translator must know the call of God and the power and leading of the Holy Spirit.
CONCLUSION: This rivalry between two good men to produce a Chinese Bible translation is very instructive for the modern Bible translator. It highlights issues of working with the nationals, what word to use for God in the target language, what word to use for baptism, what the goals of the translator should be, etc. While respecting the work of these translators, we should learn from their mistakes and do our best for the Lord if we are called to be Bible translators.
[1] Moyer, 294.
[2] Tucker, 181.
[3] Toshikazu Foley, Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek (Boston: Brill, 2009), 21.
[4] “Morrison Chinese Bible,” accessed on 4/28/15 at: http://www.streetpreaching.com/morrison/morrison _chinese_bible_1823.htm.
[5] “The Chinese Bible: How We Got It and How We Need It,” by Mans Ramstad, www.globalmissiology.org, p. 2.
[6] G. Winfred Hervey, The Story of Baptist Missions (Chancy R. Barns, 1885), 500.
[7] See seramporecollege.org.
[8] Foley, 25.
[9] Tucker, 181.
[10] Tucker, 180-181.
[11] For a full account of this, see Finding God in Ancient China, by Chan Kei Thong, 77-87.
III. Observations on the Conundrum
A. “There was a sharp rivalry (though never expressed to each other personally), including an unfair accusation of plagiarism against Marshman by some of Morrison’s colleagues.”[10] However, both versions provided a way for Christians of the time to study God’s word, and a foundation for future, better translations.
B. In later years the controversy arose about the best word in Chinese for God. Some translations use Shang Ti (上帝, Wade-Giles Romanization; Shang Di in Pinyan Romanization), which is the name of the original monotheistic God of Chinese religion, rather than Shen (神), used by Morrison and Marshman.[11] In fact, in China today one may buy the Chinese Union Version in either format.
C. If one advocates only versions translated from the KJV, one would choose the version done by the Presbyterian missionary. On the other hand, if one wants the correct word for baptism, one would use the Marshman version!
D. Both versions were criticized. Rather than disappointment, this brings up the thought that neither team was able to effectively use Chinese translation partners because of the Chinese legal restrictions of the day.
E. Translating “baptism” with a word meaning immersion as was the policy of the Serampore missionaries is more accurate and faithful to the original. However, it limits the circulation of the finished translation, since those who believe in sprinkling as the proper form of baptism will not use it. The opposite is also true. Therefore, the translator must carefully decide ahead of time how widely he foresees the translation being used.
F. If a Bible translator is worried about the opinions and criticisms of those around him or her, the translation will not be finished. The translator must know the call of God and the power and leading of the Holy Spirit.
CONCLUSION: This rivalry between two good men to produce a Chinese Bible translation is very instructive for the modern Bible translator. It highlights issues of working with the nationals, what word to use for God in the target language, what word to use for baptism, what the goals of the translator should be, etc. While respecting the work of these translators, we should learn from their mistakes and do our best for the Lord if we are called to be Bible translators.
[1] Moyer, 294.
[2] Tucker, 181.
[3] Toshikazu Foley, Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek (Boston: Brill, 2009), 21.
[4] “Morrison Chinese Bible,” accessed on 4/28/15 at: http://www.streetpreaching.com/morrison/morrison _chinese_bible_1823.htm.
[5] “The Chinese Bible: How We Got It and How We Need It,” by Mans Ramstad, www.globalmissiology.org, p. 2.
[6] G. Winfred Hervey, The Story of Baptist Missions (Chancy R. Barns, 1885), 500.
[7] See seramporecollege.org.
[8] Foley, 25.
[9] Tucker, 181.
[10] Tucker, 180-181.
[11] For a full account of this, see Finding God in Ancient China, by Chan Kei Thong, 77-87.