The Bible As Chinese Literature. Medhurst, Wang Tao, and The Delegates' Version

Harvard-Yenching Institute
The Bible as Chinese Literature: Medhurst, Wang Tao, and the Delegates' Version
Author(s): Patrick Hanan
Source: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, Vol. 63, No. 1 (Jun., 2003), pp. 197-239
Published by: Harvard-Yenching Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25066695 .
Accessed: 23/02/2011 19:27
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hyi. .
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Harvard-Yenching Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Harvard
Journal of Asiatic Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
The Bible as Chinese
Literature:Medhurst, Wang Tao,
and the Delegates5 Version
PATRICK HANAN
Harvard University
China the nineteenth century was one of the great ages of trans
occur either when one culture tries to im
IN lation. Such ages may
press itself upon another or, more commonly, when a culture reaches
outside itself for new knowledge, and in nineteenth-century China
both processes were at work. As the West first impinged on China,
it was generally the Westerners who initiated the translation, but
later it was more often the Chinese, through institutions like the
Jiangnan Arsenal and the Tongwen Guan (College of Foreign
Languages), as well as through individuals. But no matter who ini
tiated it, the translation was almost always the work of at least two
people, one more familiar with the Western language, the other
more skilled in Chinese Such dual or multiple trans
composition.
lation could take a variety of forms, depending on how well each
translator knew the other's language as well as on the nature of their
relationship.
By far the greatest suchenterprise of the century, one initiated
by Westerners, was that of Bible translation. the Bible's

Despite
challenges?its unparalleled diversity of voices, styles, and forms,
as well as a sphere of reference to the Chinese?
totally unfamiliar
it drew a large number of translators and was rendered into a con
siderable number of different versions. Both before and after their
publication, these versions were subjected to intense criticism. (It
197
198 PATRICK HANAN
was chiefly in connection with the Bible that questions of transla

tion theory and practice were raised during the nineteenth century.)
And however we may gauge their effect on the reading public, the
versions were distributed in astonishing quantities.
From the 1820s to the 1860s, no fewer than five full translations
of both Testaments were completed and published by Protestant
missionaries.1 The differences among the versions were not pri
marily doctrinal. What drove each group of translators to attempt

a new version was more
likely to be dissatisfaction with their pre
decessors' choice
of language or principles of translation. By "lan
guage" Imean the various kinds of literary Chinese, for no complete
Bible inMandarin was published until the 1870s. By "principles of
translation," Imean the position of the translated text on the range
between adequacy in representing the original and acceptability to
the tastes of the Chinese reader.2 In the simple, categorical?and
therefore unsatisfactory?terms that we tend to use, the differences
among the versions arose mainly from the perpetual tension between
"free" and "literal" modes of translation.
Translating the Bible was seldom just a two-man enterprise. Al

most every version was the work of more than one and
missionary,
every missionary had at least one Chinese assistant. The earliest

version, published at Serampore in India in 1822, was the work of
a mere handful of people: the missionary Joshua Marshman, his
collaborator Johannes Lassar (an Armenian from Macao), Marshman's
unnamed Chinese assistant from Guangzhou, and, occasionally,
Marshman's son John. At the other extreme, the fourth translation,
1
They are: Johannes Lassar and Joshua Marshman, Sheng jing IB&M (1822); Robert
Morrison and William Milne, Shentian shengshu W^cl^H (1823); Walter Henry Medhurst
and Karl G?tzlaff, Xinyi zhao shu 0fJA?SS and Jiuyi zhao shengshu ?p?ISS? (1838); the
Delegates' Version, Xinyue quanshu iff^Jît and Jiuyue quanshu fkf?itM (1854); and Elijah
Coleman Bridgman and Michael Simpson Culbertson, Xinyue quanshu S?l^J^lt and Jiuyue
JII^J^t? The years given are those in which the Old Testament, invariably
quanshu (1863).
the last to be translated, was published. The main doctrinal difference arose with the Baptists,
who chose not to participate in the preparation of the Delegates' Version because they could
not accept the proposed Chinese translation of "baptize" and other words; instead they con
tinued to use Lassar and Marshman's version was a Baptist) until a new version
(Marshman
was made by Josiah Goddard and William Dean.
2
These terms are as used in the field of descriptive translation studies, for which see Gideon
Toury, Descriptive Translation Studies and Beyond (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995), espe
cially Chapter 3.
THE BIBLE AS CHINESE LITERATURE 199
which resulted in the Delegates' Version published in 1852 (New
Testament) and 1854 (Old Testament), involved dozens of transla

tors. Portions of the Bible
assigned were
to local committees in the
various treaty ports, after which a committee of delegates from each
port assembled with their assistants in Shanghai to work out the
final version. At least eight translators (four delegates and their assis
were responsible for the final version of the New Testament,
tants)
and at least six translators (three delegates and their assistants) for
the final version of the Old Testament.
The natural rivalry among the teams of translators was only
increased by the need to compete for financial backing from the
bible societies. These societies, of which the earliest and most impor
tant was the British and Foreign Bible Society, weredistinct from
the missionary societies. They depended on their own fund-raising
in churches throughout Britain, the United States, and Europe, and
their sole raison d'?tre was to print the Bible as widely
and distribute
as possible. Before a new version could
be published and circulated
successfully, it had to obtain at least one bible society's support, and

once a society had lent its support to a version, it was understand
ably reluctant to publish a replacement unless the superiority of the

new version could be guaranteed.
The unique status of the Bible among the missionaries affected
their approach to translation. Convinced that the Bible's words were
inspired by God, they believed, in theory at least, that a mere read
ing of the text might be enough to convert people. As a result, a
majority of missionaries refused as a matter of principle to depart
very far from the words and syntax of the original Hebrew or Greek.
Some men who took a rather casual approach when translating other
works did
their utmost, when translating the Bible, to see that every
possible feature
of the original text was represented in their Chinese.
The first two translations were produced at approximately the
same time, Marshman and Lassar's at Serampore, and Robert
Morrison and William Milne's at Guangzhou and Malacca. A sub
dued rivalry with a tinge of bitterness grew up between the two
teams, each of which was striving to finish first. In the end Marshman
and Lassar managed to publish in 1822, a year ahead of Morrison
and Milne. High praise was heaped upon all the translators, but
persons who knew Chinese judged both versions to be embarrassingly
200 PATRICK HANAN
awkward. Here is Alexander Wylie's comment on the Morrison

Milne version: "Under the
circumstances, we too highly
cannot
value the efforts of Morrison and Milne, while every Chinese scholar
must be conscious of the deficiencies of their version. As might be
expected, the attempt to render it literal, has degenerated into a
style of composition intolerably unidiomatic and disfigured by a pro

fusion of barbarisms."3 Wylie's "circumstances" refer not only to
the literal nature of the translation, but also to his assertion that the
Chinese assistants employed by Morrison and Milne "were not of
very high standing in the literary scale."
Dissatisfaction with the Morrison-Milne version soon surfaced.
As early as
1826 David Collie and Samuel Kidd, missionaries at
Malacca, drew up a proposal for a more idiomatic translation
equipped with commentaries and notes.4 Not long afterward Walter
Henry Medhurst (1796-1857), stationed in Batavia, tried without

success to interest Morrison in ajoint revision of his New
Testament. Then, shortly after Morrison's death in August, 1834,
Medhurst began working on a wholly new translation, not merely
a revision. After
making a draft translation of the New Testament
as well as part of the Old, he persuaded the missionaries in
Guangzhou to join him in translating the entire Bible. It was largely

to seek the backing of the British and Foreign Bible Society for the
project that he set out for England in 1836. The Bible Society turned
him down, but his Old Testament was completed by Karl G?tzlaff
and published in 1838 in a limited number of copies, and so it is
possible to speak of a Medhurst-G?tzlaff translation. Finally, in

1843, in the aftermath of the Opium War, Medhurst had his way;
a new cooperative venture was launched. Missionaries from the
newly opened treaty ports met in Hong Kong and laid down guide
3
"The Bible in China," Chinese Researches (Shanghai, 1897), p. 100. Wylie's essay was orig
inally published in the Chinese Recorder in 1868.
4
"A Plan for Revising Drs. Morrison and Milne's Chinese Version of the Sacred Scrip
tures, accompanied by explanatory notes, copious prefaces to each book, and marginal ref
erences." There is a manuscript copy in the former London Missionary Society [hereafter
LMS] archives, now the Council forWorld Mission [hereafter CWM] archives, under China
Personal, Morrison. See the letter submitting the proposal to LMS, November 18, 1826;
CWM archives, Malacca, Incoming letters. The CWM archives are held by the School of
Oriental and African Studies, University of London. Collie and Kidd's plan was never
approved.
lines for a translation that came to be known as the Delegates' Ver

sion.
The version received high praise for its superior Chinese style.5
It was reprinted many times and was still current in China in the
1920s. Written consistently in what missionaries later called "high
wen-li" 5cS, which meant standard wenyan 5C1?, it proved accept
able to well-educated readers as no other version had been?in fact,
it was the first Chinese translation of the Bible with a claim to lit
erary merit. partly because
Yet, of the measures taken to ensure its
literary quality, it was found by many missionaries to beinadequate

as a representation of the original text.6 Credit for the version is
usually given to Medhurst, the leading spirit among the delegates,

and to Wang Tao 3:|g (1828-97), his principal literary assistant.
My aim in this essay is to explore the writing of the Delegates'
Version by examining both Medhurst's and Wang's contributions.7
MEDHURST'S APPROACH TO BIBLE TRANSLATION
Medhurst had made known his ideas about Bible translation

almost twenty years before the delegates set to work.8 In 1827 or
5
Luo Xianglin H?tt sums up this kind of opinion in his Xianggang yu Zhong-Xi wenhua
zhi jiaoliu S^ll^ffi?t?b^S?^?? (Hong Kong: Institute of Chinese Culture, 1963), pp.
43-45.
6
For example, G. F. Fitch, "On a New Version of the Scriptures inWen-li," Chinese Recorder
(August 1885): 298, writes: "The Delegates' version is characterized by its excellent Chinese,
but by such free rendering of the text as to make it, in many instances, little more than a
paraphrase." John Wherry makes a mo?re subtle point: "On the one hand, to even the spir
itual reader, the diamonds are eclipsed by their settings, while on the other the
too much
inexperienced unspiritual reader, deceived by the familiarity of the rhythm, is liable to mis
take Christ for Confucius, to his peril." See "Historical Summary of the Different Versions
of the Scriptures," Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, Held at
Shanghai, May 7-20, 1890 (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Press, 1890), p. 52. W. A. P.
Martin sums up the problem by saying, "A difficulty in rendering the Christian Scriptures
is, that the translator is not at liberty to measure off his periods according to the canons of
Chinese taste." He then goes on to say "Of the more recent versions, one at least (that of
the Delegates) is distinguished for classical taste." See "Remarks on the Style of Chinese
Prose," Hanlin Papers (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1894), p. 261.

7
For studies of later translations of the Bible, see Irene Eber, The Jewish Bishop and the
Chinese Bible (Leiden: Brill, 1999); Jost Zetsche, "The Work of Lifetimes: Why the Union
Version Took Nearly Three Decades," in Irene Eber, Sze-kar Wan, and Knut Waif, eds.,
The Bible inModern China (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta S?rica, 1999), pp. 77-100.
8
Medhurst's approach to translation is consistent with his use of the most familiar Chinese
202 PATRICK HANAN
1828 he boldlypointed out the "foreign and awkward style" of

Morrison's version, at the same time sending Morrison his revision
of the first five chapters of Matthew "with but a few alterations
which I thought would remedy and improve the style."9 Morrison
to Medhurst, that their ideas of translation were
replied, according
so different that "it would
be very difficult to form a version, in
which the two should
be combined, and that therefore I [Medhurst]
had better set about making one myself. This, of course, I did not
presume to do, considering my poor attainments in the language

compared to his, and hoping that at some future period he would
turn his attention to the subject."
Early in 1834 Medhurst began translating and compiling Fuyin

tiaohe ffii??f?ifn of the It is a patchwork life of
(Harmony Gospels).10
from the Gospels, with the source of each passage
Jesus compiled
noted. Remarkably, it was not just a revision of the correspond
duly
of Morrison's version, but a new translation.11
ing parts By April,
Medhurst had printed off the first twenty double pages,12 and he
wrote to the British and Foreign Bible Society about it, a sign that
he hoped to make it the basis of a Bible translation.13 He was wor
ried, he told the Society, that he might have gone too far in trying
to make it readable. If so, in a new translation of the Bible a com
be worked out with the Morrison version, one in
promise might
which "the sense of the Scriptures may be expressed with exactness
and the purity of the Chinese style be preserved." He evidently sent
this sample toMorrison, for we have Morrison's jaundiced reaction
to it in ajournai entry of May 16, 1834: Medhurst "wants to make
works. He was the first missionary to rewrite the children's primer Sanzijing H.^|M (Three
character classic) using Christian content. He also used the form of the Analects to expound
Christian moral precepts; see his Lunyu xinzuan ItoIpStS a new compilation).
(Analects,
9
Letter from Medhurst to LMS, April 1, 1835. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming let
ters.
10
There is a copy in the Harvard-Yenching Library.
11
Letter from Bridgman to the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
14, 1834 ("an entirely new translation"). Bridgman says

[hereafter ABCFM], April
Medhurst's letter to him was dated February 18, 1834. The ABCFM archives are held by
the Houghton Library of Harvard University. Most of the archives are available on micro
film from Primary Source Microfilm; for this letter, see reel 256.
12 to LMS, April let
Letter from Medhurst 10, 1834. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming
ters.
13 is
An extract from his letter to the British and Foreign Bible Society [hereafter BFBS]
attached to his letter of April 10 to LMS.
the Bible palatable to the pagan Chinese. Entirely forgetting how

much nominal Christians?and I fear all Christians?disrelish the
Bible, he thinks that by his improved style, he can render it quite
a
parlor-book!"14
Medhurst admitted that he chose the form of the Harmony in order
to make a fresh translation without directly challenging Morrison:
"I commenced a Harmony of the Gospels in which I might attempt a
style of translation more suited to the Chinese taste, without appear

ing to go over the ground or interfere with the work of our highly
respected friend."15 He had great hopes for the Harmony as the model
for a new translation. Writing not long after Morrison's death, he
said that it would soon be published, at which point "the judgment
of native readers and European sinologues willbe pronounced as to
its merits."16 Should it be well received, he said, he would not only
bring out a second edition but

proceed to translate the entire New
Testament. In that event, he promised to cooperate fully with the
American missionaries and also with Morrison's son, John Robert
Morrison, exchanging drafts for mutual criticism. He renewed his
plea for permission to visit Guangzhou, partly to facilitate this work.

By April 1, 1835, the second edition of the Harmony was in press,
and Medhurst announced that his translation of the Gospels was
nearly complete. He expected to finish the whole of the New

Testament within a few months.17
By "American missionaries," Medhurst meant principally Elijah

Coleman Bridgman, who had received a grant from the American
Bible Society for
the republication of the Bible. In a letter to his
missionary society, Bridgman describes Medhurst's Harmony and
then continues, "We are undertaking something of the same kind
here, but proceed with a slow and trembling step. We have begun
with the Gospel of Luke, endeavoring to render it more perspica
cious, and more conformable to the Chinese idiom, adhering as
strictly as possible in every case to the Greek text."18 A week or two

later, Bridgman noted that the Morrisons, Karl G?tzlaff, and the
14
Memoirs of theLife and Labours of Robert Morrison (London: Longman, Orme, 1839), 2:517.
15
See his report to LMS, October 27, 1834. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming letters.
16
Ibid.
17
Letter from Medhurst to LMS, April 1, 1835. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming let
ters.
18
Letter to ABCFM, April 14, 1834. ABCFM archives 16.3.8 (reel 256).
204 PATRICK HANAN
other missionaries in Guangzhou had all agreed that no new blocks

should be cut for the Bible until the Morrison-Milne version had
been revised.19 John Robert Morrison was assisting with the revi
sion, and Bridgman proposed to his missionary society that they
engage Morrison to take the leading role in the work. The neces
sary funds were available from the American Bible Society, and the
elder Morrison had approved of his son's participation. The appoint
ment of the Morrison, we assume, was recommended
younger may
partly because of his excellent Chinese, but also to obtain his father's
blessing.
As the revision proceeded?Luke was finished in the autumn of
183420?Bridgman heard that Medhurst

granted permis had been
sion to visit Guangzhou and participate.21 He arrived in June, 1835,
and promptly threw himself into translating the New Testament.
Bridgman remarks, "His main business now is revision of the Bible,

and I am engaged with him from morning to night."22 Sometimes
Medhurst wrote of "revising" the Bible, sometimes of "translating"
or it. too, wavered between "revision"
"retranslating" Bridgman,
and "retranslation."23
If news of the revision

way in Guangzhouunder had spurred
Medhurst into
speeding up his plans, Morrison's death on August
1, 1834 spurred him even more. Within three months Medhurst
had appealed to the London Missionary Society to approve a full
scale "revision." He was aware of the dangers of challenging any
one as revered
as Morrison, but he argued that the cause was too
important to permit any delay: "[Morrison] being now however
called to his rest, and to his reward, no inferior ideas of delicacy
should be allowed to interfere with the superior consideration of ren
dering the Sacred

Scriptures as intelligible and acceptable to the
Chinese as A few months later, he was offering detailed
possible."24
criticism of the Morrison translation as well as a plan for a new ver
sion of the entire Bible.
19
Letter to ABCFM, April 26, 1834. As in n. 18.
20
Letter to ABCFM, January 9, 1835. As in n. 18.
21
Letter to ABCFM, March 26, 1835. As in n. 18.
22
Letter to ABCFM, July 14, 1835. As in n. 18.
23
Letter to ABCFM, January 9, 1835. As in n. 18.
24
Report to LMS, October 27, 1834. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming letters.
The text New has been a number
[of Morrison's Testament] crowded with of lit
tle words and particles, stand
which indeed in the original, and are necessary in
Western but which are no means in Chinese, and which
languages, by requisite
by loading the paragraph obstruct the sense, and so instead of rendering it more
contribute to make it obscure. There is, it is true, a certain
intelligible, style pecu
liar to the scriptures, and which is thought by many to add dignity and solemnity
to the sacred page, but much of this is perhaps attributable to mental association,
we have been accustomed to such a a book, which from our
and because style in
earliest years we have been to look upon as the book of God, we have
taught by
come to venerate the Hebraistic
degrees style in which the book is written.25
Medhurst had a clear

conception, one he was later to refine, of the
appropriate style for the Chinese translation: "When a Chinese in

the present day writes a letter, or essay, or a public document, it is
in the short, pithy, and comprehensive style of the ancients, or of
the philosophers of the middle ages." He then turns to the public
discontent over the Morrison-Milne translation. "I have more than
once adverted to the retranslation of the Chinese Scriptures, and it
behoves me now to say something more particular on that subject.
For several years past, I have been accustomed to hear the Chinese
express considerable dissatisfaction with our present versions of the
Scriptures in their
language: all describe the style as stiff and
uncouth, the sentences as too long and involved, and the numerous
untranslated words as giving it a foreign, in their eyes a barbarous
appearance: many have thrown it aside after the perusal of one or
two pages." This was what led him, he says, to compose his Harmony
of the Gospels.
In Guangzhou, while trying to find a ship other than an opium
trader to take him up the China coast on a voyage of exploration,
Medhurst busied himself with the work of retranslation. In a letter
of August 24, 1835, he said he was
being advised by the mission
aries in Guangzhou,26 adding that the four Gospels "have also been
submitted to the inspection of several learned natives."27 Apparently
John Robert Morrison was looking them over one more time before
they were printed, while G?tzlaff had already gone through Genesis
and Exodus. In a letter of November 1, 1835,28 written after his
25
Letter to LMS, April 1, 1835.
26
Letter to LMS. CWM archives, South China, Incoming letters.
27
Letter to LMS, August 24, 1835. CWM archives, South China, Incoming letters.
28
206 PATRICK HANAN
return from the voyage, Medhurst expressed a need for assistance

in procuring teachers and transcribers and summed up the transla
tors' progress on the New Testament: "I am at present engaged with
Messrs. G?tzlaff and Morrison in giving the last finishing stroke to
the revision of the Gospels, and have carried the translation of the
Epistles to the end of James."29 G?tzlaff and Morrison were in full

agreement with him on the principles of translation.30 By January
1836, he and his colleagues had revised the whole of the New Testa
ment and also Exodus from the Old Testament.31 He proposed to
take a large part of the former back with him to Batavia and pub
lish it in a lithographic edition. As for the rest of the Old Testament,
he would divide the labor with G?tzlaff; each man would prepare
his own section and then they would exchange drafts. He hoped to
do much of his share during his impending voyage to England. What
was under was a new translation, not a revision.
way clearly
Before Medhurst reached
England, the advance copy of the New
Testament had received a savage review from two London Mis
sionary Society missionaries stationed in Malacca.32 (The review
concludes, "If ever there existed a translation to be
professing
faithful, and most unfaithful, it is the new Chinese translation.")
Medhurst had not circulated a draft of the New Testament to
Malacca?a tactical mistake, as he later realized. The missionaries
concerned were
John Evans and Samuel
Dyer. Evans, the moving
spirit behind the criticism, was a teacher of classics who, at the age
of thirty, had applied to the London Missionary Society for a post
29
30
On G?tzlaffs attitude, see the pamphlet by Medhurst, John Stronach, and W. C. Milne,
to Dr. Boone's Vindication of 'Comments on the Translation of Ephes. I in the
"Reply
Delegates' Version of the New Testament'" (Shanghai: London Mission Press, 1852), p. 37:
"When he cooperated in the production of the Batavian version [i.e., the 1836 New Testament
by Medhurst and others], his only enquiry at that time was, how will the Chinese under
stand any given word or phrase." Later, in revising the translation of the Old Testament,
G?tzlaff reverted to a far more literal method. On Morrison's attitude, see his letter to BFBS
of July 25, 1837, a copy of which is contained in the CWM archives, South China, Incoming
letters.
31
Letter to LMS, January 9, 1836. CWM archives, South China, Incoming letters.
32
See the copy of the letter from Evans and Dyer to Joseph Jowett, Editorial Secretary of
BFBS, dated April 27, 1836, contained in "Documents Relating to the Proposed New Chinese
Translation of the Holy Scriptures," BFBS archives. A letter from Evans and Dyer to G?tzlaff
dated April 25 is enclosed. The BFBS archives are held by Cambridge University.
at this stage and never ventured a

ing.33 He knew little Chinese
Chinese rendering; his objections were based entirely on a com
parison with the Greek. In his rebuttal of this "intemperate" criti

cism,34 Medhurst was able to show that in some cases Evans and
Dyer had not understood his Chinese. In the meantime, their let
ters, which had reached the London Missionary Society, had done
considerable damage to his cause.
Medhurst's application, on behalf of himself, G?tzlaff, and Morrison,
was submitted from Hackney in London, dated October 28, 1836.35
It was accompanied by an assessment of Morrison's version of
Matthew, a comparison of the old and new versions of the first
chapters of Luke and Colossians, and specimens of free and literal

translation of the first section of the Confucian Four Books. The
specimens were included to "illustrate the peculiarities of a Chinese
style."
In paying tribute to Morrison and Milne, Medhurst stresses the
"difficulty and delicacy" of his undertaking; the "cause of God,"

however, cannot be denied. He gives a modulated account of his
first approach to Morrison. He notes the initiative of the American
Bible as well as the fact that Morrison's own son was tak
Society
ing a leading part in the work. And he quotes the highly critical
opinions of several Chinese on the Morrison-Milne translation.
They include Zhu Delang fcWM, an assistant whom Medhurst had

brought him to England,
with and Liang Afa i?Hf$, the pastor
ordained by Morrison. They describe the Morrison translation as
unidiomatic, difficult, foreign, obscure, stiff and unbending, unfin
ished, and verbose. Liang goes so far as to add, "If the translation
be intended for the Chinese, it must be entirely remodeled, or it
will not answer the end designed."
33
See his application to LMS, CWM archives, Candidates' papers 281. Alexander Wylie
exaggerates in reporting that he was "successively Professor of Classics, Mathematics, Hebrew
and Arabic" in England: see Memorials of the Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese (1867; rpt.,
Taipei, Ch'eng-wen, 1967), p. 76. Evans claims to have studied a little Hebrew and Arabic
on his own.
34
"Remarks of Medhurst on letter of Evans and Dyer," November 19, 1836, contained in
"Documents Relating to the Proposed New Chinese Translation of the Chinese Scriptures,"
BFBS archives.
35
"Memorial Addressed to the British and Foreign Bible Society on a New Version of the
Chinese Scriptures." BFBS archives.
208 PATRICK HANAN
The main problem with the existing version was said to be its
unidiomatic nature. The tracts written by the missionaries were
more acceptable to readers than their translations of the Bible, be
cause the style of the tracts was in a more
genuine Chinese, while
that of the Bible wore a foreign
aspect. According to Medhurst, a
Chinese translation in particular needed to be idiomatic, because
"Chinese is a language of phrases; and the usus loquendi in the col
location of words obtains with them more than with any other peo
ple." The Morrison-Milne version was

too profuse with its parti
cles; it adhered to the original sentence order, even when that order
was unnatural; it had strings of relative clauses, which were abhor
rent in Chinese; and so forth. Hebraisms ought to be avoided; fig
urative language ought often
plain; to be made and since, by the
rules of the bible societies, to be published
the Bible had
"without
note or comment," rough Chinese equivalents ought to be given for
weights and measures instead of transliterations. Attention must also
be paid to the rhythm of Chinese prose, to the "measured sentence,"
as Medhurst calls it. He justifies
bringing a Chinese assistant with
him, and concludes by noting the difficulty of appealing to the
Chinese literati: "We have nothing to calculate upon in China but
aversion and proud disdain." His Harmony and the new translation,
he avers, were in the direction of an eventual transla
merely steps
tion by a Chinese translator. "The best translation, after all, will be
one produced by a native; and when we can procure a learned and
pious Chinese, deeply read in his own language, and well acquainted
with the original Scriptures, he will doubtless produce a version,
before which all our best productions must give way." For their time
Medhurst's recommendations were advanced, unmatched
quite
among the major English translations of the Bible, for example,

until the publication of the New English Bible in 1970. Of the
Authorized Version of 1611 and its revision of 1885, it has been
said "translators
that felt that fidelity demanded that they repro
duce, as far as possible, characteristic features of the original lan
guages such as the order of words, the structure and division of
sentences, and even the irregularities of grammar."36 This was the
position taken by Medhurst's critics.
36
Jack P. Lewis, The English Bible (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1991), p. 132.
Medhurst's proposal was considered by the editorial committee

of the British and Foreign Bible Society on November 25, 1836.37
Several representatives of the London Missionary Society were pre
sent by special invitation. The proposal was rejected in the harsh
est terms, condemned as "tending to substitute human paraphrase
for the simple statements of the word of God."38 Instead, the com
mittee urged the London Society to undertake a revision of the
Morrison-Milne version, and promised to pay the costs. In a fur
ther repudiation of Medhurst, the committee
recommended the
immediate repatriation to China of his assistant Zhu Delang, who
was supported with Bible Society money. They even urged that the
copies of the New Testament already printed be withdrawn from

circulation.
The vehemence of the rejection cannot be explained simply by
Medhurst's principles of translation, nor by the attack from Evans
and Dyer; it arose from resentment over his attempt to supplant the
Morrison-Milne version. the resentment also ex
(Presumably,
tended to the great man's son, for cooperating in the attempt.) Some
of the committee members were old friends of Morrison's, and igno
rant though they were of Chinese, his version held canonical status
in their eyes. Joseph Jowett, secretary of the committee, tried to
explain to Medhurst the reaction of some members: are
"Scarcely
[Morrison's] labors closed by the hand of Death, when his place is
occupied by a number of individuals, who, professing at first only

to revise his an new translation which must
work, produce avowedly
supersede it, and on the strength of what has been granted to a well
tried and valued old friend, assume the liberty of printing and lith
ographing it at the expense of the British and Foreign Bible Society.
This was the feeling expressed by some members of the Committee,
and I assure you that it was with some difficulty that they were dis
suaded from recording their feelings by some strong resolution."39
37
See the minutes of the previous meeting read at the December 19 meeting of the Eastern
Committee of LMS. CWM archives, Minutes. Medhurst was an invited guest at the meet
ing.
38
For the resolutions, see "Resolutions, etc., of the British and Foreign Bible Society on
the Preceding Papers?Meeting of Editorial Sub-Committee," dated November 25, 1836, in
"Documents Relating to the Proposed New Chinese Translation of the Holy Scriptures,"
BFBS archives.
39
See the letter from Jowett to Medhurst dated December 19, 1836. CWM archives,
210 PATRICK HANAN
Trying hard to conceal his sense of outrage, Medhurst managed

to produce a lengthy "Memorial Addressed to the Directors of the
Missionary Society on the Projected Revision of the Chinese Scrip
less than a of which is to his sug
tures,"40 quarter actually devoted
gestions for revision, the rest being a defense of his translation and
a rebuttal of the Bible Society's condemnation. The memorial begins
by repeating the resolution condemning his translation for "tending
to substitute human paraphrase for the simple statements of the
word of God," and then boldly defends paraphrase itself (but note
that in the printed version "paraphrase" is prudently altered to "free
rendering"). The use of paraphrase (free rendering) has long been

conceded in principle, Medhurst maintains, before proceeding to
illustrate the point from the English Authorized Version; the only
question is "the degree to which one occasionally departs from the
phraseology of the original."

In the Chinese case, an even greater freedom should be permit
ted, argues Medhurst, because of the total lack of biblical knowl
edge on the part of Chinese readers, and also because the Chinese
"prefer their own idiom and phraseology so much that they will not
look into a book written in a barbarous
or foreign style." He grounds
his argument in terms of the innovative translation theory of George
Campbell's The Four Gospels, Translated from the Greek, with Preliminary
Dissertations, and Notes, Critical and Explanatory (1788), of which the
tenth dissertation deals with translation. Campbell names a num
ber of basic requirements that the translator must try to meet, the
second of which is "to convey into his version, as much as possible,
Committee Minutes, December 19, 1836. In a January 3, 1843 letter to the American Bible
Society, Jowett put the point even more plainly. The committee found in Medhurst's pro
posal, "such a sweeping condemnation of what had been effected by Dr. Morrison?a man
in the highest trust, both in his civil and military character?accompanied by a style of trans
lation, which, on his own showing, appeared to us so rash and daring, that we could not but
fear committing ourselves to the new translation." See Margaret T. Hills, "The Chinese
Scriptures, 1831-1860," American Bible Society Historical Essays, vol. 7, section III-G (July
1964), p. 25. The (unpublished) Historical Essays are preserved in the American Bible Society
Library.
40
Medhurst's manuscript is to be found in the CWM archives, Home letters, 1836. A
printed version dated December 18, 1836 is contained in "Documents Relating to the
Proposed New Chinese Translation of the Holy Scriptures," BFBS archives. Milne's obitu
ary of Medhurst describes his colleague's reaction to the rejection of his proposal: see The
Evangelical Magazine andMissionary Chronicle (September 1857): 526.

in a consistency with the genius of the language which he writes,

the author's and manner, and . . . the character of his
spirit very
The third is "to take care that the version have at least so
style."41
far the quality of an original performance, as to appear natural and
easy, such as shall give no handle to the critic to charge the trans
lator with words improperly, or in a meaning not war
applying
ranted by use, or combining them in a way which renders the sense
and the construction or even harsh." In
obscure, ungrammatical,
his later polemics, Medhurst frequently appeals to the notion of the
"genius" of the Chinese language, a set of qualities peculiar to

Chinese that ought to govern the translator's choices. He never again
refers to the notion as an original
of translation performance, but
it informs his next Bible translation, the Delegates' Version.
Medhurst's "Memorial" stresses the need for a new, idiomatic
translation, and then goes on to discuss the Bible Society's rejection
of his proposal, which he explains as resulting from his method of
presentation. He had appended specimens of his and Morrison's

versions accompanied by literal translations in English. Unfortu
nately, the Morrison version, which seemed awkward in Chinese
because of its foreign idiom, read well when translated literally into
English, while Medhurst's version, smooth enough in the Chinese,
seemed for that very reason awkward in a literal English transla
tion.
The "Memorial" was not the end of the controversy. Some months
later, John Robert Morrison wrote to the Bible Society, protesting
the decision.42 It was not at all presumptuous of Medhurst to attempt
a new version, he asserts. His father had been in China only seven
years when his New Testament was published, and many transla
tion aids had appeared since then. Furthermore, his father had him
self contemplated something more than a mere revision, writing to
his son in April 1834: "I would that I had leisure and strength for
41
(Andover: Gould and Newman, 1837), 1:340.
42
Letter to LMS, July 25, 1837. CWM archives, South China, Incoming letters. See also
the letter by G. T. Lay of October 10, 1836 to BFBS, supporting Medhurst's translation.
He asserts that the old version "abounds inWestern idioms" and is "made from the English
version." G?tzlaff has invited him (Lay) to assist him in the translation of the Old Testament.
"I plead the cause of the Hebrew, G?tzlaff that of the Chinese." An extract is included in
CWM archives, South China, Incoming letters.
212 PATRICK HANAN
a new version of the Bible." The younger Morrison calls for an

idiomatic version, one that might seem to have "emanated from a
Chinese mind," and ends with a scathing attack on the knowledge
of Chinese possessed by Evans and Dyer.
On the other side, Samuel Kidd, a former London
Society mis
sionary who was now Professor of Chinese in the of
University
London, launched his own attack on the Medhurst His
proposal.
long polemic (twenty-one printed pages plus supporting material)
was dated December 23, 1836, a month too late to be considered
by the Bible Society.43 Incidentally, this was the same Samuel Kidd
who ten years before had himself proposed a more idiomatic ver
sion of Morrison-Milne. The vehemence of his views can no doubt
be ascribed to loyalty to Morrison and perhaps also to dislike of
Medhurst, but the attitude he takes to Bible translation has a cer
tain interest object of a translator
in itself. "The is, not that the
should appear to be a book written
Scriptures originally by Chinese,
but to enable Hebrew writers to describe their own manners, cus
toms, and habits." He stresses the dangers of equating Christian
with Chinese concepts: "For my own part, I always found great dif
ficulty in dissuading the Chinese from the attempt to identify Divine

doctrines with their own dogmas; and in proportion as we adopt
their names for spiritual objects, we increase this difficulty." The
new version, he claims, is "designed to gratify the Heathen. This is
the leading feature of the work. Fidelity to the original, whether in
remarks on specific points, or in the general, is scarcely once named
as the reason of any alteration. Are we then to reduce the Scriptures
to the standard of Paganism, and bring down those holy records
from their sublime as of the charac
pre-eminence, representations
ter and proceedings of God, to an equality with the groveling sen
timents of ignorant, superstitious men?"
Medhurst himself to the subject of Bible
returned translation in
his China: Its State and Prospects, written while he was still in England.44
He argues that a revision of the Morrison-Milne Bible is urgently
needed, and repeats Kidd's very mild criticism of Morrison-Milne,
while neglecting to mention Kidd's excoriation of his own version.
43
"Remarks on the Memorial Addressed to the British and Foreign Bible Society on a New
Version of the Chinese Scriptures." BFBS archives.
44
(London: John Snow, 1838), pp. 549-51.
He then on to make some for a com

goes provocative suggestions
prehensive revision of Morrison: the principles of translation should

be drawn up in advance; the real character and genius of the Chinese
language should be ascertained; a suitable, exact, and idiomatic

form of language should be found; and the draft translations of the
various collaborators should be compared "in the presence of learned
and converted natives." But his failure to mention his own unsuc
cessful proposal for a new translation only to enrage Kidd.
served
In an essay appended to The Memoirs of The Life and Labours of Robert
Morrison,^ compiled by Morrison's widow, Kidd included much of
his earlier, unpublished review and accused Medhurst of deliberate
misrepresentation.
No revision of Morrison was ever begun, probably because no
missionaries apart from Medhurst and his group were capable of
undertaking it. In 1843, as I have said, with the support now of the
bible and missionary societies, the Protestant missionaries met in
Hong Kong and resolved on an entirely new translation. The New

Testament would be farmed out, section by section, to committees
of translators in Hong Kong and the new
treaty ports, after which
a committee of delegates, one elected from each center, would
assemble in Shanghai to work out a final version. In an ominous
development, however, two key questions were left unresolved.

Firstly, no agreement could be reached on the proper term for God?
either Shen jp$as used by Morrison and Milne, or Shangdi _h^ as
used by Medhurst?and the question was referred to a special sub
committee consisting of Medhurst and James Legge. Unfortunately
for Medhurst, Legge clung to Shen and the question had to be
shelved. (Legge changed his mind eventually, but by then it was
too late.) Secondly, the formula adopted for the level of language,
style, and principles of translation was all too vague: "That any
translation of the Sacred Scriptures into Chinese ... be in exact
conformity to the Hebrew and Greek originals in sense; and so far
as the idiom of the Chinese language will allow, in style and man
ner also."46 The so-called "term question," about the proper trans
lation for God, blew up into the biggest controversy of the century
45
Kidd's essay is entitled "Critical Notices of Dr. Morrison's Literary Labours." See pp.
71-72.
46
See Chinese Repository 12.10 (October 1843): 551.
214 PATRICK HANAN
for the Protestant missionaries,4 while the translation issue led to

the breakup of the delegates' committee and the preparation of sep
arate Bibles based on different principles of translation. Medhurst
himself stood right at the center of the two controversies. In fact,
his strongly held views may be said to have precipitated them both.
The translation question consisted of two separate issues, style
and the principles of translation?to use the missionaries' terms. By
"style" they meant the level of literary Chinese employed. The terms
"low (or easy) wenli" XS48 and "high wenli" had not yet come into
common use, but many missionaries had a notion of different lev
els of the language. The Delegates' New Testament was later to be
described as written in a "high" level of the language, although it
is actually in standard literary Chinese. Some missionaries objected
to its style because they wanted the text to be accessible to as wide
a range as possible,
of readers even at the cost of its standing as
good writing.49 Medhurst caustically suggested that they objected

because they had little acquaintance with literary Chinese outside
of the writings of their fellow missionaries.50
Dissatisfaction with the "high" style of the New Testament ap
peared even before the Delegates' translation was complete. React
ing against it, the Shanghai local committee in March, 1850 in
structed their delegates to advocate
in the Old Testament, on which
work was soon to begin, "a plain and simple style of translation such
as can be read and understood by men of moderate education."51
47
On July 5, 1847, only a few days after the delegates began their work, Bridgman pro
posed that Shen be adopted. When no agreement was reached, it was decided that all work
should cease while the argument was carried on in writing. Six papers were then shuttled
back and forth between the factions from July to November 1847, but at their November 22
meeting, they still could not agree. The delegates adjourned until January 1848 to prepare
statements for the public, then continued with their translating. After the papers were
published, many Protestant missionaries in China were drawn into the controversy. See
Medhurst, Stronach, and Milne, "Strictures on the Remarks Contained in 'Papers Relating
to the Shanghae Revision of the Chinese Scriptures,'" a pamphlet dated June 16, 1852. BFBS
archives.
48
Wenli was the common term among foreigners in the nineteenth century for literary
Chinese.
49
These were often the same missionaries who insisted on the most literal translations, with
the result that the language, although simple, still read awkwardly.
50
Letter to LMS of November 17, 1838. CWM archives, Batavia, Incoming letters.
51 are to be found in the ABCFM
The minutes of the meeting archives, Bridgman, Elijah
Coleman and Eliza Jane, Papers and Correspondence, box 2, folder 10.
this resolution was not taken up by the other local com

Although
mittees, it indicates tension on the subject.
growing
of translation" was an even more serious matter. It
"Principles
referred, essentially, to the position of the translated text on the

range from adequacy to acceptability. The connection between
Medhurst's stress on acceptability and his preference for the term
Shangdi should be noted. Shangdi, which evidently meant "supreme

deity" in some early Chinese texts, fitted Medhurst's belief?and
the belief of others, particularly among the LMS missionaries?that
the early Chinese had a knowledge Furthermore, as an
of God.
established Chinese term, likelyit was
to be acceptable to Chinese
readers. His opponents rejected the notion that the Chinese had any
original knowledge of God and preferred the generic term shen ("god,
spirit").
Sharp differences over the principles of translation divided the
New Testament committee, but they did not become public until
work had begun on the Old Testament. Of the five delegates,
three?Medhurst, John Stronach and W. C. Milne?were from the
London Missionary Society. Stronach and Milne seem to have fol
lowed Medhurst's lead on style and the principles of translation, as
well as on the "term question," and both men cosigned most of the
letters that Medhurst drafted on these subjects. The other two com
mittee members were Bridgman and William Jones Boone. Boone
never attended any meetings except to cast his vote, explaining that
he suffered from "a very of the nervous
great derangement" system
that made it impossible to do any sustained work.52
for him This
ailment prevented him from working on the Bible, but not from
turning out polemical pamphlets on the issues of terminology and

translation, as Medhurst and Milne did not hesitate to point out.53
In the day-to-day work of translation, therefore, Bridgman's was
the only critical voice to be heard, and he claims that his objections
to "the conciseness of the style" were routinely ignored.54 For their
52 on
See Boone's "A Vindication of Comments the Translation of Ephesians I in the
Delegates' Version of the New Testament," a pamphlet published in Canton in 1852, p. 10.
BFBS archives.
53
See "Strictures on the Remarks Contained in 'Papers Relating to the Shanghae Revision
of the Chinese Scriptures.'"
54
See the minutes of the Canton local committee for April 7, 1851. ABCFM archives,
216 PATRICK HANAN
part, Medhurst and his colleagues confidentially described Bridgman's

contribution as negligible: "The version would have been nearly all
that it now is, if he had never sat on the delegation."55 In a letter
written after work had already begun on the Old Testament, Milne
described him as appearing "more useless and inert than ever."56
Although the dispute over the term question had created the ini
tial breach in the committee, it was not the immediate cause of the
breakup. What finally led the London Missionary Society to ask its
delegates to withdraw was the absence of Boone and the alleged inef
fectiveness of Bridgman. After issuing a number of promptings, the
directors of the Society, at their meeting on July 22, 1850, urged
their missionaries to carry out their translation of the Old Testament
"unconnected with the agents of any other institution."57 The mis
sionaries had previously been reluctant to withdraw, because they
were convinced that if the Bible were the product of cooperation
"there would be a greater likelihood of securing the patronage of
the Bible Society in publishing the version, and of getting the mis
sionaries as a body to adopt and circulate it when printed."58 That
was why in August, before receiving this latest, unambiguous in
struction from their society, they had set to work on the Old Testa
ment as part of an expanded committee.
The two new delegates on the committee, Michael Simpson
Culbertson and Jehu Lewis Shuck, helped tip the balance against
the LMS missionaries, for when allied with Boone and Bridgman,
they could outvote Medhurst and his colleagues.59 The frustration
of the latter is evident from their confidential letters and reports.
"Messrs. Shuck and Culbertson came, as they both said, to our
Committee to learn how to translate," the three men wrote to the
Bridgman, Papers and Correspondence, box 2, folder 13. The committee supported
Bridgman's views of the New Testament translation and called for a new version "less obscure
and concise, and more faithful to the original."
55
Letter from the three to LMS, March 31, 1851. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming
letters.
56
Letter to LMS, September 13, 1850. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming letters.
57
Letter from Arthur Tidman, Secretary of LMS toMilne, July 22, 1850. CWM archives,
Outgoing letters.
58
Letter from the three to LMS, February 20, 1851. CWM archives, Central China,
Incoming letters.
59
Ibid.
British and Foreign Bible Society.60 "Mr. Shuck sat for about six
months with us, Mr. Culbertson for about one; we are sorry to see,
however, that they have learned so little." "We cannot resist the
conviction, that they have proved themselves in great measure igno
rant, of the genius and spirit of the Chinese language." It is hardly
surprising that in February 1851, the LMS delegates finally decided

to heed their society's bidding and withdraw. They did so, accord
ing to the letters they wrote, not because of any differences over the
principles of translation, let alone the style, but because their fellow
members were either ignorant or obstructive. Naturally enough,
they declined to state this publicly and said only that they were act
ing on the instructions of their society.

In the aftermath, amid the flurry of explanations and justifica
tions that both sides addressed to the other China missionaries as
well as to the bible and missionary societies, it was the Boone
Bridgman-Culbertson side that raised the translation question. They
argued for a close, literal translation in a simple and accessible
Chinese, a position that probably appealed to the majority of China
missionaries at that time. At first, Medhurst denied that any dif
ferences of principle existed?had not Bridgman and Boone them
selves served as delegates??and suggested that the attack was a ploy
by Boone and the others to win bible society backing for an inde
pendent translation.61
Eventually, however, in the face of explicit
criticism, he was forced to defend himself.
As with the term question, the personalities of two dominant indi
viduals?Boone and Medhurst?also played a part in the translation
dispute. In his ingratiating explanations and justifications, Boone
reveals himself as very much the politician, a man in constant con
trol of the impression he is trying to make. That was certainly how
Medhurst saw him, for when Boone was about to visit he
England,
warned the London Missionary Society to be on their guard: Boone
"is excessively plausible in speech" and "wins over many by his pious
tone."62 Medhurst, in contrast, was far from being a politician, let
60
Letter from the three to George Brown of BFBS, November 11, 1851. Copy in CWM
archives, Central China, Incoming letters.
61
See "Strictures on the Remarks Contained in 'Papers Relating to the Shanghae Revision
of the Chinese Scriptures.'"
62
Letter from Medhurst to LMS, July 17, 1852. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming
letters.
218 PATRICK HANAN
alone a diplomat. He has been described as being "somewhat blunt

in manner."63 Justifiably enough, he had put his convictions about
the need for a new translation ahead of any "delicacy" over
Morrison's reputation, and he paid a price for his forthrightness.
An earlier incident, just a few years after he arrived in Asia, con
firms this characterization of him. He came toMalacca as a printer,
but within a year he had beenappointed a missionary. His men
tor, William Milne (the father of W. C. Milne), in his report to the
London Missionary Society remarked on this advancement with a
touch of irony: "As Mr. Medhurst discovers an ardent zeal for the
cause of Christ, and possesses good talents, I would suggest that the
Directors send out someone of inferior talents, to manage the print
ing."64 Not long after his ordination, Medhurst began to challenge

his mentor. He resented being seen as Milne's subordinate, and he
felt that Milne was domineering and perhaps also jealous of the
younger missionaries. He refused to teach
general subjects in the
newly established mission school as Milne had asked him to do?

he had come to preach the Gospel, he said, and he considered his
spoken Chinese to be already better than Milne's.65 In the end, with
out seeking approval from Milne or the London Missionary Society,
he simply transferred himself to another station, Penang. Milne
explained to the Society that he had had "some little differences"
with Medhurst over the past two years, but recommended tolera
tion: "He is not an idle man?he will not trifle?give him your best
counsel?caution him against any such heedless acts for the future?
and let the matter rest there."66 In later years, a justifiable convic
tion of his own
superior knowledge of Chinese led Medhurst to
express open disdain for Boone and Culbertson, and even, to some
degree, for His pamphlets on the translation dispute also

Bridgman.
have a tone of self-righteous moral indignation?charging Boone in
particular with bad faith, neglect of duty, and underhand maneu
63
See his biography in Joseph Stratford, Great and Good Men of Gloucestershire (Cirencester:
C. H. Savory, 1867).
64
Letter from Milne to LMS, May 10, 1818. CWM archives, Malacca, Incoming letters.
65
Letter from Medhurst to LMS, September 21, 1820. CWM archives, Penang, Incoming
letters.
66
Letter from Milne to LMS, January 2, 1821. CWM archives, Malacca, Incoming let
ters.
vering?that tends to detract from the force of his arguments about

translation.
The polemics on the translation question consist of letters to the

home societies and organizations in China, as well as a number of
articles and pamphlets: an anonymous account of the missionaries'
withdrawal that appeared in the Chinese Repository of April, 1851 ;67
a response by the three LMS missionaries, challenging various state
ments and charging that Bridgman, the assumed author of the
account, had revealed the confidential proceedings of the delegates'
was Bridgman's
committee (in fact the author colleague, Samuel
Wells Williams, who denied getting his facts from an
Bridgman);68
anonymous pamphlet of November 10, 1851, criticizing in detail
the delegates' translation of Genesis, Exodus, and the Epistle to the
Ephesians a pamphlet by the three LMS delegates of

(Chapter l);69
16, 1852, responding to the above;70 a pamphlet in response,
June
of September 1852, by Boone, revealing himself to be the author of
the critique of Ephesians;71 a lengthy pamphlet by the three LMS
delegates of November 15, 1852, responding to Boone's response;72
and a pamphlet by Culbertson, the author of the critique of Genesis,
responding to the response to his critique.73
The theoretical
position of the critics was expressed in its most
extreme form by Bridgman in a letter to his own society: "It is my
opinion that the style of the translation should be precisely that of the
sacred text, equally plain and simple, preserving and exhibiting, as
67
20.4 (April 1851): 216-24.
68
Chinese Repository 20.7 (July 1851): 485-88. The editor of the journal (Williams) chose
merely to summarize the main charges made in the response and follow them with his own
comments. The original 16-page printed letter ("Letter to the Editor of the Chinese Reposi
tory") is found in the CWM archives, Central China, Incoming letters.

69
"Papers Relating to the Shanghae Revision of the Chinese Scriptures." BFBS archives.
70
"Strictures on the Remarks Contained in 'Papers Relating to the Shanghae Revision of
the Chinese Scriptures.'"
71
"A Vindication of Comments on the Translation of Ephesians I in the Delegates' Version
of the New Testament," Canton, 1852. BFBS archives.
72 on the Translation
"Reply to Dr. Boone's 'Vindication of Comments of Ephes. I in the
Delegates' Version of the New Testament,'" by the Committee of Delegates (Shanghae:

London Mission Press, 1852), plus a ten-page preface dated November 15, 1852. Printed
with a public letter from James Legge to the LMS secretary defending the style and princi
ples of translation of the Delegates' New Testament.

"Reply to the Strictures on the Remarks Made of Genesis and Exodus
in the Revision of the Chinese Scriptures," Canton, 1852.
220 PATRICK HANAN
far as practicable, all the peculiarities of the original."74 A letter

from Culbertson to the missionaries of Fuzhou, attempting to rally
support against Medhurst and his colleagues, runs: "We are com
pelled to say that we have lost confidence in those brethren as trans

lators of the Holy Scriptures. In the first place we entirely disap
prove of the style which they have selected, and we believe that a
large majority of Protestant missionaries in China will not be satis

fied with it. The gospel is to be preached to the poor, and the Bible
must be written in a style which
therefore shall be to the greatest
attainable extent
accessible to the poor. But what is of much greater
importance than style is, that they do not give?in many cases do
not even aim to give?as faithful an exhibition of the sacred text as
the idiom of the Chinese language will admit. The number of
instances in which the text has been mutilated in the translation of
the first books of the Old Testament, executed chiefly by them, is
greatly to be deplored. We grieve to see it. We do not now refer

to
the frequent substitution of a loose for a translation, but
paraphrase
to the entire omission of words, of parts of sentences, and some
times of almost entire verses ('with frequent mistranslations' is
two examples. The first is from Genesis 7, in
added)."75 He gives
which two verses are reduced to one: "This we know was done inten
tionally." Another is the ninth commandment, translated as Wu
wang zheng #leil, which corresponds well enough to "Do not bear
false witness" but leaves out
"against thy neighbor." "We see not
how a Christian can place a translation in which such
missionary
omissions and wrong translations are of frequent occurrence in the
hands of a heathen?and tell him it is the word of God."
Most of the criticisms made in Culbertson's and Boone's "Papers
to the Shanghae Revision of the Chinese Scriptures" were
Relating
routine enough, and Medhurst was ableto dispose with ease of such
charges as pronouns substituted of speech ren

for nouns and figures
dered into plain language. He had trouble, however, with the charge
of textual omission: "Where two clauses express the same, or nearly
74
Quoted in Eliza J. Gillett Bridgman, The Life and Labors of Elijah Coleman Bridgman (New
York: Randolph, 1864), p. 186. Although Bridgman had always favored a fairly literal trans
lation, his views eventually became quite extreme.
75
ABCFM archives, Bridgman, Papers and Correspondence, box 2, folder 11. I believe
that the unsigned letter dated May 22, 1851 is actually by Culbertson.
the same idea, one In the example

is omitted." from Genesis 7,
Noah, following God's command, is ushering two of each kind into
the ark. In the Delegates' Version, verses 15 and 16 are collapsed
into one, eliminating the repetition. Medhurst's answer to the charge
is, "This has been done to avoid the repetition of merely synony
mous words, which in Chinese only burthen the sentence and ob
scure In a letter to the London Missionary
the sense."76 Society, he
elaborates as follows, "After having said that 'all flesh male and
female entered in', would it have added to the sense to say 'and they
went in male and female of all flesh'?"77 In his reply, Culbertson
denies that the reduced form expresses the full sense, but even if it
did, he argues, the change would still not be justified. "Would not
a humble reverence for the sacred text require that where an inspired
writer has chosen to express an idea twice, it should be expressed
twice in a translation?"78 For most missionaries, that argument
would have been irrefutable, but not for Medhurst, with his con
viction of the peculiar genius possessed by each language.
Since Medhurst had held that conviction since at least 1836, can
one say that his view of translation had evolved? Did his new trans
lation differ markedly from the old? There is no doubt that the sec
ond translation differs greatly from the first. Both aimed to satisfy
the reader by their use of familiar Chinese
expressions and their
avoidance of foreign idiom, but whereas the 1836 translation (and
the Harmony before it) aimed at the simplest form of literary Chinese,
the Delegates' Version attempted to achieve a standard of Chinese
prose that even well-educated people would appreciate. Little as one
may sympathize with the arguments of critics like Boone and
Culbertson, their observations about the different "style" of the
translation were not unfounded.
In his own arguments Medhurst describes the style of the new

translation as "chaste and correct," "chaste and concise," or "chaste
and easy," by which he means it adhered not merely to good literary
76
"Strictures on the Remarks Contained in 'Papers Relating to the Shanghae Revision of
the Chinese Scriptures.'"
77
Letter from the three to LMS, May 10, 1852. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming
letters. Medhurst has slightly misstated the repetition.
"Reply to 'Strictures on the Remarks Made of Genesis and Exodus
in the Revision of the Chinese Scriptures'" p. 13.
222 PATRICK HANAN
Chinese, but to good Chinese prose, with requirements that go

mere and such as terse
beyond vocabulary syntax, requirements
ness, the "measured sentence," and so forth. In one
balance, expla
nation, he says that he and his colleagues had "endeavored to employ

a scholar-like style, which while it offends not the good taste of the
literati, is readily
intelligible to the mass of the people, who have
any acquaintance with letters."79 His most significant claim, how
ever, is that "anyone reading our version of the New Testament
through, will, we are persuaded, acknowledge that we have so writ

ten in Chinese, as may serve to recommend our version as a valu
able work in that tongue."80 In appealing to the well educated,

Medhurst clearly wanted his Bible to be regarded as a work of
Chinese literature.
Medhurst was in a good position to put his ideals into practice.
His LMS colleague Alexander Wylie, who was a member of the
Shanghai mission during the whole period of the Delegates' trans

lation, asserted that the New Testament "may well be considered
Medhurst's production" and that the completion of the Old Testa
ment was due mainly to his "energy and zeal."81 Medhurst's was
clearly the dominant voice in the translation of the Delegates' Ver

sion. To attainideals, his prepared he was to run the risk of offend
ing his fellow missionaries, to say nothing of the bible societies. But
his own judgment of Chinese prose, confident as it may have been
after thirty-odd years in China, was hardly adequate for taking such
a risk. To an exceptional degree he trusted in the good judgment
of his Chinese assistants.82
WANG TAO AS TRANSLATOR OF THE BIBLE
Medhurst long paid close attention

had to the literary qualifica
tions of his Chinese assistants. Of Liu Zichun, a licentiate who
79
Letter of March 31, 1851 by the three to LMS. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming
letters.
80
"Reply to Dr. Boone's Vindication," p. 21.
81
Memorials, p. 35.
82 on the
Cf. the free hand he must have given the assistant from Nanjing who helped
Mandarin translation of the New Testament published in 1856. It was criticized for its
colloquialisms; see John Wherry, "Historical Summary of the Different Versions of

Nanjing
the Scriptures," p. 55.
helped him in the 1836 translation, a man "passionately addicted

to the Chinese classics," he remarked, "By his perfect acquaintance
with the native language, [he] is able to suggest many idiomatical
Of Jiang Yongzhi, a young licentiate who served
improvements."83
as his assistant on the first stage of what became the Delegates' Ver
sion, he remarked, "His judgment as to the use of terms and the
molding of expressions is so enlarged and correct, that we have
already found him of great service in revising the translation of the
Scriptures."84 He also singled out the historic figure of Xu Guangqi

f?Jt?f (1562-1633), the scholar who assisted Matteo Ricci in his
Chinese writings. Medhurst described Xu as "a mandarin of great
talents and influence," and pointed specifically to the literary assis
tance he gave Ricci: "His accurate knowledge of the language
enabled him to throw the publications of his instructor [in religion,
i.e., Ricci] into a neat and elegant style, which contributed to their
acceptability with the higher classes of the people."85 Medhurst's
principal assistant on the Bible translation, Wang Tao, aspired at

one point to play a role with Medhurst similar to the one Xu
Guangqi had played with Ricci.

Medhurst's concern for "the higher classes of the people" seems
to have increased once missionaries were able to enter thetreaty
ports. In 1845, at the suggestion of a Christian convert, he made a
risky journey from Shanghai far into the interior. Disguised as a

Chinese, he traveled, undetected, as far as Wuyuan gjjg in Jiangxi
in order to meet some Confucian scholars belonging to a local acad
emy. For a week he stayed "at the abode of some learned Confu
cians, with whom I held long and very interesting discussions on
the subject of religion and the peculiar claims of Christianity. They
were willing to concede the excellence of the Christian system, and
the exalted character of the Savior; but were exceedingly stumbled
at the exclusive character and claims of the Gospel. The truth was
83
China: Its State and Prospects, p. 296. Liu's name is Lew Tse-chuen in Medhurst's tran
scription.
84
Letterto LMS, April 10, 1846. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming letters. Jiang's
name is Tseang Yung-che inMedhurst's transcription.
85
China: Its State and Prospects, p. 227. He also praises Jesuit works in general as "written
in a lucid and elegant style." Note that Medhurst translated a work entitled Dissertation on the
Silk-manufacture, and theCultivation of theMulberry from Xu's Nongzheng quanshu J?J&êl? (Com
pendium on agriculture).
224 PATRICK HANAN
however plainly told them, and caused great agitation in the minds
of some, though I fear without any decidedly favorable results."86
While staying there, Medhurst wrote Yesu jiaolue I?Mt&Rg (A Brief
account of Christianity), for the edification of his hosts.87
His assistants on
the Delegates' committee were a father and his
son, Wang Changgui ?ut? and Wang Tao 3E?S.Wang Changgui
assisted with the work from its inception in 1847, but he died in the
middle of 1849, when the delegates were two-thirds of the way
through the New Testament, and Medhurst chose his son as suc
cessor.88 Wang Tao assisted with the rest of the New Testament and
the whole of the Old Testament, and remained as translator with
the Shanghai mission until 1862, when a letter of advice he had
written to a Taiping general was traced back to him. He was for
tunate to escape from Shanghai and settle in Hong Kong, where he
helped James Legge with the translation of some of the Chinese clas
sics and made his name as a litt?rateur and as a pioneer
journalist.
All of our information about Wang
Changgui's role in the
translation, and much about Wang Tao's, comes from a report by
Medhurst to his society dated October 11, 1854.89 One of the items
isWang Tao's baptism, and in the course of the account Medhurst
speaks of the contributions to the translation of Wang Tao's father.

He also attaches to his report an English translation of Wang Tao's
application for baptism.

Wang was
a learned man who had made
Changgui a living as a
teacher of the Chinese classics. He moved to Shanghai at about the
same time as the delegates began their work, presumably in response
to an invitation. Medhurst refers to him only as Wang Tao's father,
but says that he assisted in the translation of the New Testament as
far as the Epistle to the Romans. He describes him as follows: "He
had an extraordinary amount of book [the word king, i.e.,jing, clas
sics, is added] knowledge, so as to acquire the name of the walking
86
Letter to LMS, June
30, 1845. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming letters. Med
hurst gives a full account
of the journey in his A Glance at the Interior of China: Obtained during
aJourney through the Silk and Green Tea Districts Taken in 1845 (Shanghai: Mission Press, 1849).
87
There is an 1858 edition edited by Joseph Edkins in the British Library.
88
Wang Tao's much-quoted account of his visit to the LMS press in 1848 was in fact a
visit to his father's place of work.
89
Report to LMS. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming letters.
library ['dictionary' is crossed out], but he was most determinately

attracted to the doctrines of Confucius, saying that as he had lived
a disciple of that sage, so he would die one, and so indeed he did
['as far
as we are aware, for he was suddenly taken ill and died' is
added], without any change of views. We lamented his departure,

not only for his own sake, but for ours, supposing that we should
find some difficulty in supplying his place." The only other refer
ence to the father that I have noticed is in a letter from Medhurst
written one month before Wang Changgui's death: "I believe I can
vouch for the correctness of the translations, having enjoyed the
assistance of a very learned native well acquainted with the litera
ture of his
country."90
Wang Tao was presumably chosen on the recommendation of the

other assistants. Medhurst describes him as "a man of singular tal
ents, who though not equal to his father
of learning in the amount
he had acquired, was superior in the ability to to him
apply what
he knew to the best uses. His style of writing was said to be elegant,
and his judgment mature." His work and his conduct more than
fulfilledexpectations. "Not only did he maintain a respectable posi
tion among the other teachers, much his seniors in point of age, but
being of industrious habits, he took upon himself most of the labor

connected with the preparation of the work, which was generally
adopted after some corrections by his compeers. In this way, he

went through the doctrinal parts of the New Testament, and all the
Old. For many of the happy turns of expression to be met with in
the translation of Job, and the Proverbs, as well as the chaste and
easy style which prevails throughout we are indebted to him."
During the course of the translation, Wang Tao showed no per

sonal interest in Christian doctrine. But after the translation was
complete, and the assistants, who had been engaged specifically for
that purpose, dispersed, he fell seriously ill and fully expected to
die. "His conscience was aroused," Medhurst informs us, "and the
truths about which he had been busied came fresh into his mind,
and he resolved to embrace Christianity." Wang asked to be
90
Letter from Medhurst to LMS, June 30, 1849. CWM archives, Central China, Incoming
letters. The translations Medhurst refers to are the sources he quoted on the term question,
on which he evidently had Wang help.
Changgui's
226 PATRICK HANAN
baptized at once, but the missionaries, fearing that his desire might
not outlast the danger he found himself in, made him wait for a
year, during which he maintained his intention. After the baptism,
Medhurst says he was "employed in revising the whole of our
Chinese hymns, and putting them in such a form that they might
not be repulsive to the ears of the most refined poetical genius, and
at the same time unobjectionable on the score of doctrinal senti
ment." If Medhurst's hymnal91 was indeed the work referred to as
"our Chinese hymns," then Wang
hymnal, Tao's
Zongzhu entitled
shizhang ÊEiNf$ (Hymns to the was a new creation rather

Lord),92
than a revision. Support is given to this conjecture by the number
of hymns it contains on characteristic Chinese themes such as reward
and retribution, filial piety, the proper roles of fathers and sons,
masters and servants, and the injunction to be content with one's
lot.
Thehymnal was not the only written work that resulted from
Wang Tao's conversion. He also thoroughly rewrote a tract by

Medhurst on the sacrifices made at the Qingming festival.93 His ver
sion, Yeke wen nanji U^fpJ?fE
entitled (The countryman asks hard
questions), first published in 1854, is an expansion and reworking

of the original, placed in an entirely different narrative context.94
In Medhurst's words, "He has rewritten one of our tracts
entirely
on the worship of theof ancestors,
tombs, a subject which
and
requires very delicate

handling in Chinese, and which he has so
treated as to put the question in its true light, and correct many of
the erroneous notions previously entertained by the Chinese on the
subject." Wang Tao's willingness to rework tracts, rather than
merely revise them, accords with the self-confident attitude that I
impute to him in his treatment of the biblical text.95

91
It was entitled Yang xin shenshi JI^JBiNF (Hymns to cultivate the heart), and dates from
the 1820s or 1830s. There is a copy in the Harvard-Yenching Library.
92
There is a Hong Kong edition of 1855 in the British Library. It contains eighty-one
hymns plus a set of poems on the Trinity.
93
Entitled Qingming sao mu zhi lun fif ?^J^?^Llffi (On the sweeping of graves at the Qingming
festival), it was first published in 1826.
94
There is an 1870 edition in the British Library.
95
In addition to a variety of other translations for the London Missionary Society, Wang
Tao continued to polish religious documents. Joseph Edkins and Griffith John asked him to
polish the theological statement that they handed to the Taiping leader Li Xiucheng $^|jj?
in Suzhou in 1860. Wang Tao put the statement, as Edkins expresses it, "in a form or style,
Medhurst and his colleagues had great hopes for Wang Tao; they
thought that with his newfound faith and his literary ability he would
be the ideal interpreter of Christian doctrine to Chinese intellectu
als, and for a time Wang, too, saw himself in that role. In attaching
Wang Tao's baptismal application to his report, Medhurst meant

to show the missionary society "the current of his thoughts when he
began to reflect on Christianity" and "what his views are with regard
to the future." The application is important both for Wang Tao's
views and for the subject of Bible translation, and since its hand
writing is difficult to decipher?in microfiche form it is quite impos

sible to decipher it in full?I print it as an appendix to this article.
The nature of Wang Tao's Christian beliefs has puzzled scholars
ever since Paul Cohen showed that Wang had not merely taken part
in church activities but had actually been baptized.96 Before the dis
covery of the application, the only references to his Christian activ
ities were those in his diaries, which were not published during his
lifetime. In some of his letters he defends himself against the charge
of working for the foreign missionaries by saying that he is acting
from economic necessity, but he never refers to his Christian beliefs,
nor does he mention his father's service to the mission. So far as
possible, it seems, he tried to keep his Chinese friends and relatives

in the dark.97 To add to the puzzle, from 1858 on, the references
to Christian texts in his diaries turn derogatory, incompatible with
the statements of a believer.
Besides Wang Tao's illness, which he identified as consumption,
there was another reason in 1853 for his apparent change of mind.
Cohen has pointed out that Thomas Wade's teacher Ying Longtian
J??EB had presented himself to Medhurst and asked for religious
such as would appear melodious to readers of that amount of literary attainment which we
know the rebel leaders to possess." See Paul A. Cohen, Between Tradition andModernity: Reform
in Late Ch'ing China Council on East Asian Studies, Harvard
(Cambridge: University,
1974), p. 54, quoting from The Missionary Magazine and Chronicle 24 (1860): 271-78. On Wang
Tao's assistance with the translation of secular material, see Xiong Yuezhi f^^?l, Xixue
dongjian yu Wan-Qing shehui H^)fC$ft?%i]f tt# (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe,

1994), pp. 270-77.
96
Between Tradition andModernity, p. 19.
97
He also kept the missionaries in the dark regarding his activities as man about town.
While recuperating from his illness in the summer of 1853, he wrote his nostalgic memoir of
the courtesans of Shanghai, Haizou yeyou lu \%W.f?$?!$k
228 PATRICK HANAN
instruction at about
the time of Wang Tao's illness.Ying had just
returned a year in England
from with Wade, the new British con
sul in Shanghai, and when he expressed an interest in being bap
tized, Wade had sent him over to Medhurst for instruction. To
Tao, Ying must have represented a modern version of a
Wang
Chinese intellectual?one who had traveled widely in the West and
now wished to subscribe to the dominant Western religion. The two
men became close friends, and Wang wrote up what Ying had told
him of his travels and observations in a small volume Yinghai entitled
biji WMWi on countries Ying's Christian beliefs

(Notes overseas).98
surely had an influence on Wang Tao.
What happened after that to change his opinion of Christianity?
was transferred to Guangzhou in 1855, and Medhurst,
Ying Longtian
Wang Tao's mentor, who had had much to do with his conversion,
left China at the end of 1856 and died soon afterward. Cohen has
that Wang Tao was troubledby the aggressive actions of
suggested
Britain and France during the late 1850s, a time during which, to
judge from Wang's letters, he became increasingly concerned about

the threat posed by the foreign powers. Another factor may have
been the influence of Guan Sifu UrHOC.
Guan Sifu, the son of Guan Tong ?r|nl, a famous master of the
Tongcheng flnii?c school of prose-writing, had assisted the medical
missionary Benjamin Hobson in writing

his medical treatises, begin
ning with Xiyi luelun SBlBSif? (Brief account of Western medicine),
a book on Western surgery that appeared in 1857. Wang's diary
indicates that he became close friends with Guan in 1858. Early in
1859, although Guan needed work, he refused Bridgman's invita
tion to assist him with the Old Testament, on the grounds that to
do so would conflict with his Confucian beliefs.99 To encourage
Guan to accept the invitation, Wang ridiculed the Bible's contents
and minimized the role of the literary assistant: "While we're work
98
In his diary for the sixth month of 1853, he writes that he is suffering from consump
tion. In the seventh month, he notes the arrival of Ying Longtian. See Yingruan rizhi?t?EI
?? inWang's manuscript diaries, Henghuaguan zalu Srf?f&?JiU?, preserved in the Institute of
History and Philology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan, pp. 28-29. There is a copy in the Harvard
Yenching Library.
99 and Tang Zhijun JSifei^, eds., Wang Tao riji?^BfS
Fang Xing ?fff (Beijing:
Zhonghua shuju, 1987), pp. 77-78 (February 6, 1859).
ing on the translation, they [the foreigners] are in charge of the
meaning?I just polish the style. Whether or not the text conflicts
is no concern of mine. Moreover, a literary
[with Confucianism]
man employed by is hardly
them going to exert himself to the
utmost; all he does is give the text a casual touching up. He takes
no responsibility if it fails to make sense or if the style is vulgar or
obscure." For these assertions, Guan gave him a moral lecture, and
after he left, Wang Tao says he felt ashamed of his own lack of prin
ciple in working on Christian texts.

Two at this time reveal Wang's
letters written profound sense of
alienation from
the foreigners in the mission.100 In each letter he
quotes a passage from the Zuo zhuan in which a courtier is advising
the Duke of Lu against an alliance with the southern state of Chu:
"Since they are no kin of ours, their thinking is bound to be alien."101
In any case, to judge from Wang Tao's application for baptism,
his Christian convictions, though no doubt genuine, had more to
do with ethical principle than religious dogma. Although so-called
ancestor worship, a bugbear of the missionaries, held no problems
for him?he easily accepted the missionary point of view that only
the Creator was to be worshiped?his reference to the "abstruse
speculations and hidden mysteries" of all religions suggest that he

is trying to distance himself from dogma. In counseling the mis
sionaries against attacks on Confucius, he remarks with a certain
detachment, "Let each system be studied with a view to the good
that may be obtained from it."
Such observations carry more
a hint of the religious
than uni
versalism he was later to embrace.
In his essay "Yuan dao" g? (In
search of the way), he argues that the world's increasing unification
by the new technology of modern communications presages a spir
itual unification as well.102 Presumably the universal religion will
ignore all those incompatible "abstruse speculations and hidden
mysteries" and focus instead on a common code of ethics. Hailing
100
See his letters to Zhu Xuequan $kW& and Zhou Taofu JS|K^ of January 21, 1859 and
February 27, 1859, respectively. Wang Tao riji, pp. 64-67, 81-84. The second letter shows
a retreat from a policy of interchange with foreign culture into a sort of isolationism.
101
Duke Cheng, fourth year.
102
Chen Heng Rfi and Fang Yiner ;frfli||, eds., Taoyuan wenlu waibian KBXiftfMi
(Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1998), pp. 35-36.
230 PATRICK HANAN
the new European "religion" of positivism in another essay, Wang

Tao praises it for concerning itself not with the worship of God or
the spirits, or a belief in the afterlife,103 but with the duties of the
individual and the search for truth. Its adherents are lauded as fol
lowers of the ancient Chinese sages. Wang's universalism evidently
had much in common with his Confucianism.
Wang's baptismal application reveals the kind of role he hoped

to play in mission work. His mention of the help that Xu Guangqi
gave to Matteo Ricci is particularly telling. In Wang's view, Ricci
needed a literary man like Xu in order to make his works respectable
in the eyes of well-educated people. Some of the works Ricci and
Xu translated were honored in China and were even admitted into
the imperial library. The success of the early Jesuits as compared
with present-day missionaries sprang from the fact that the Jesuits
had "clever and distinguished men" to assist them. By contrast, the
Protestant missionaries had failed to select the right collaborators,
and "intelligent men" were put off from joining the church by the
numbers of "ignorant and incapable men" who belonged to it:
"Which of them has ever distinguished himself from the rest by the
composition of works setting forth their views on the subject of the
new faith?"
Wang Tao calls for an intellectual elite to propagate
the gospel.
The assistants employed so far "have
generally been
speaking pos
sessed of no very extensive acquirements and have had a very super
ficial acquaintance with books and doctrines." As a result, their pub
lications have been quickly discarded.
The question resolves itself into a matter of good writing. Plain
ness of
style, much lauded by the missionaries, was not enough.
"Polish," which we may understand as a distinctive literariness, was

needed as well. "When plainness and polish are combined, the work
becomes beautiful
and worthy of perusal." A book "should excel
both in the principles inculcated and in the mode of statement, com
bining both the ornate and the substantial." Despite their excellent
content, the Protestants' books were written in a "rugged and
coarse" style, guaranteed to put the reader to sleep. Worse still, in
an attempt to make them intelligible to laborers and artisans, some
103
uyx Busidieni-jiao" j$2MC?i&JE?fc (On Positivism), Taoyuan wenlu waibian, pp. 253-54.
had been written in a regional dialect. But if books are written in

a manner that combines both the ornate and the
substantial,
"accomplished and learned men will praise them in the higher cir
cles," and even laborers and artisans will ultimately be affected.
Wang Tao ends by offering to write such a work himself: "I should
be glad to compose a work on the subject of religion, with the view
of explaining the mysteries of Christianity."
A SAMPLE OF THE TRANSLATION
gain an impression
To of the Delegates' Version, it is not enough
merely to quote criticism and countercriticism; one should also

examine a specimen of the text, no matter how short. Let me take
a passage from Job, which Medhurst mentions as one ofWang Tao's
most successful translations. Here is the first part of Chapter 3, con
sisting of Job's great cry of despair, as he fervently wishes that he
had never been born. To each verse of the Delegates' Version I have
attached a close English rendering, drawn from a recent work, of
the Masoretic texts of the Hebrew Bible.104
The Book of Job, Chapter 3, verses 1-15
1,2. mmm?B, s;
After this, Job opened his mouth and cursed his day of his birth. He said:
"May the day of my birth perish, and the night it was said, 'A boy is born!'
That it turn to darkness; may God above not care about it; may no
day?may
light shine upon it.
5.mnmmmmmz, mmm^., Bmmz.

May darkness and deep shadow claim it once more; may a cloud settle over it;
may blackness overwhelm its light.
That night?may thick darkness seize it; may it not be included among the days
of the year nor be entered in any of the months.
7. f??DA^, ***#, *M?S.

that night be barren; may no shout of joy be heard in it.
May
104
John R. Kohlenberger, ed., The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: Zondervan, 1979-85), 2:285-86.
232 PATRICK HANAN
those who curse curse that day, those who are to rouse Leviathan.
May days ready
9. &smmat?&, ws*?, ?*syR#, jzmm?.

its morning stars become dark; may it wait for the daylight in vain and not
May
see the first rays of dawn,
10. ?B,*Bc#aSiI??.
For it did not shut the doors of the womb on me to hide trouble from my eyes.
did I not perish at birth, and die as I came from the womb?
Why
i2. $?&*$, ?im$t.

were there knees to receive me and breasts that I might be nursed?
Why
13. ?Hl?tfl#te?; a^T?#3c?.

For now I would be down at peace; I would be asleep and at rest
lying
14. H???, *?0rSfc?B?, ffi4*ffi.

with and counselors of the earth, who built for themselves now
kings places lying
in ruins,
is. %snt, &mm, m^?#, asca?e???.

With rulers who had gold, who filled their houses with silver."
I shall omit consideration of the problematical cases: verse 5 of

the Chinese translation, in which the word qian H, "berate," is hard
to account for, and verse 8, of which the original Hebrew is sus
ceptible of many different interpretations.

In the rest of the translation, we notice a number of omissions
and contractions, none of great significance in themselves, but
enough, when taken together, to set this translation apart from oth
ers. In verse 1, "After this" and "Job opened his mouth" are both
omitted. In verse 3, "the night it was 'A boy is born'"
said, is trans
formed, the oral statement together with any reference to
omitting
conception. In verse 13, the biblical parallelism of "now I
Job's
would be lying down at peace; I would be asleep and at rest" is
reduced to jin keyanran anqin ôJt^Û, "I could now be sleeping
peacefully."
Additions and
expansions are found principally in verses 13, 14
and 15. "For"in verse 13 is expanded to jinjia dangshi wu sheng ?ff?*
#P#$??, "If I had not been born at that time," and "with" in verse
15 is expanded to woyuyu zhi tong gui yu jin ^^^?IrIM^?, "I wish
to return with them to oblivion." In verses 14 and 15 there is no
textual warrant for either erjin anzai ??d^St?E or erjin wuyou M^Mf?,
parallel phrases meaning "where are they now?"
The passage shows a strong tendency toward parallelism of the
Chinese kind, that is to say, parallelism with semantic, syntactical,
and metrical aspects. In verse 3, the sense has been changed to
accommodate the parallelism, and in verse 15, not only have the
two parallel clauses erjin anzai and erjin wuyou been added, but "rulers
who had gold" has also been changed to "great generals and rich
men" in order to match the "kings and counselors" of the previous
verse.
Figurative language has been modified, in fact weakened, to avoid
jarring the reader's sensibilities. In verse 7, "May that night be bar

ren" to bu dan yinghai
is reduced ^Fi?i???, "Not bear a child." In
verse 10, "For it did not shut the doors of the womb on me / to hide
trouble from my eyes" has been drastically weakened to shi ri, mushi
yu wo, zhi zao jianku HE3, ?tJSW?c, SAiS'ir, "that day my mother
bore me, causing me to suffer [these] agonies." And in verse 12,
"Why were there knees to receive me/ and breasts that I might be
nursed?" is also weakened, to mu he tixi wo, rubu wo Si5t?f8?, ?lflt
35c, "Why did my mother take me in her arms and nurse me?"
The translators' main concern here, as in the whole of the Dele
gates' Version, was
evidently to present a smooth version in liter
ary Chinese, one that would prove easily acceptable to readers but
not stray too far from the biblical text. They have avoided the awk
wardness of a close translation, but at a certain cost in terms of fig
urative language. In general, the style deserves Medhurst's descrip
tion of it as "chaste and easy," "chaste and correct."
There is a clear distinction between the two-thirds of the New

Testament on which Wang Changgui assisted and the rest of the
Bible, for which Wang Tao was largely
responsible. Toward the end
of the New Testament, and particularly in Revelation, far greater
liberties are taken by the translators, liberties of the sort noticed
above in the rendering of Job. For example, the beginning of
Revelation 21 in the Authorized Version, which is literal enough
for our purpose, runs, "And I saw a new heaven and a new earth:
for the first heaven and earth were passed away; and there was no
more sea." Bridgman and Culbertson, seeking fidelity in their ver
sion, translated this simply and directly into insipid Chinese: 5cj|
234 PATRICK HANAN
??fT^f?ite. ^5fc^5fe*EJfi. *^mW?ft.105 Compare thatwith theDele

gates' Version: ???^?iJW?I, *$??#, &aiJL3cS?-?r, "The origi
nal heaven and earth crumbled, the seas returned to the void, and
I saw a heaven and earth entirely new." The order of clauses has
been changed to reflect a more logical understanding (the disap
pearance of the seas is paired with the destruction of heaven and
earth). In addition, the newly introduced expressions "crumbled"
and "returned to the void" are more natural (and stronger) in
Chinese than the equivalents of "passed away" and "was no more,"
while tian diyi xin is more idiomatic (and also stronger) than you xin
tian xin di.
Most of the criticism of the Delegates' Version focused on the lat
ter part of the New Testament as well as the Old Testament, the
parts of the Bible for which Wang Tao was To a
responsible.106
much greater degree than his father, he was willing and able to put
into practice his own stringent ideas of what constituted an accept
able Chinese prose.
105
See the Bridgman and Culbertson Bible. It is interesting to compare the way this verse
is translated in Medhurst's 1836 New Testament: #P#, Mffr^, Srflk MWft?.^MM
?c, f?c^W?SÎ- It is just as literal as Bridgman and Culbertson, and in simpler language,
even including some vernacular elements.
106
Boone complains of "unjustifiable liberties" beginning with the Epistles. See his "A
Vindication of Comments on the Translation of Ephesians I in the Delegates' Version of the
New Testament," p. 18. Bridgman criticizes the New Testament as lacking "fidelity, and the
simplicity and plainness so characteristic of the original text," but asserts that the Old Testa
ment is "still more unsatisfactory in these essentials." See his letter of October 1, 1851 to
ABCFM recounting the dispute. Note that Wang Changgui did make substantial changes,
even if they were not as substantial as his son's. It is instructive to compare the Delegates'
Version of Mark, Chapters 1-4, with the same chapters as translated into literary Chinese
by the famous translator Yan Fu J?c?lE in 1908. Yan's version, of which there is a copy in
the BFBS archives, stays much closer to the original. Thor Strandenaes has made a close lin
guistic comparison of Matthew 5.1-12 and Colossians 1 in Morrison's and the Delegates'
versions, with some reference also to Jean Basset's manuscript version (of which Morrison
made heavy use); see his Principles of Chinese Bible Translation (Uppsala: Almqvist and Wiksell
International, 1987), pp. 22-75, 161-66.
Appendix
"STATEMENT OF MR MEDHURST'S TEACHER ON APPLYING

FOR BAPTISM"107
Libin flJH, Tao's a native of

Wang-le-pin [i.e., Wang Wang original name]
Sin-yang [Xinyang] district, respectfully presents this declaration regarding him
self to the teacher Medhurst.
I am now 26 years of age; my abilities are few, and my circumscribed.
learning
On the one hand I have not been able to cultivate virtue, nor on the other to
improve my understanding, living in this neglected some time, I became, state for
at length, so engrossed with the love of fame and gain, that I felt no disposition to
reform; my mental vision became obscure, and my were more

perceptions daily
darkened. Had death me in these circumstances, I should have been
surprised
unable to obtain any deliverance. Thinking of this, I felt my danger, and bitterly
regretted my past conduct.
In my early years I was blessed with domestic instruction, and paid much atten
tion to odes and classics; I put myself under a course of training, and ranked myself
amongst the rest of the learned, embracing firmly the doctrines of Confucius, not
thinking of anything beyond. About this time my father died, and I was engaged
to come in his place, where I heard the true doctrine. Although I was the last and
least of those employed in the translation of the scriptures, I soon perceived in
them a true excellence which I duly appreciated.
Permit me now to set before you a few of my views at that period. the
Jesus,
son of God, in coming down into the world, in giving himself for the salvation of
men, and in setting up a for the instruction of all ages, so that the whole
religion
human race might have some one to look to and depend upon, has certainly estab
lished an extraordinary amount of merit. He has also set forth the retribution of
the future world, and taught how the soul is to be saved, so that rewards and pun
ishments are made distinct and clear, without any possibility of evasion. His state
ments regarding heaven and hell are not borrowed from
the Buddhists' system,
while his declarations respecting the future happiness of the good and the misery
of the wicked, a great deficiency in the system of the philosophers. Should
supply
any wish to enter his religion, the principal requisites seem to be repentance,
unbounded veneration for the Deity, the rejection of what is corrupt, and the revert
ing to what is correct, with the obtaining of the Holy Spirit to renew the heart,
the evidences of which are to be shewn in our altered life and conversation. For
the adherents of this religion are not merely to come to a settled and sincere inten
tion, they must also abandon all former vicious practices, and pursue an
entirely
new course, every kind of virtuous action, not tiring till they die. They
performing
must acknowledge themselves to have been guilty of many faults, and depending
on own that
Jesus for redemption, they must they have no merit of their own, and
The original Chinese text no longer exists.

236 PATRICK HANAN
on the merits of Jesus for deliverance; then Jesus will accept them while
rely they
also exhibit the sincerity of their hearts by their outward conduct.
When I first read the New Testament, and found how Jesus suffered in the stead
of sinners, in order to redeem them from all I had some doubts on the
iniquity,
subject. I thought that ifmen had transgressed, and stifled the voice of conscience,
it would have been merely sufficient for Jesus to reprove them, and teach them
better, (with uninterrupted carefulness, continuing in this course) until he died, in

order to induce men to a virtuous course. It did not seem to me, then, to be nec
essary for him to give up himself to die for mankind, so that their innumerable
sins might be On common occasions we deem it improper for men to kill
forgiven.
themselves in order to accomplish a virtuous action, how then can we expect an
person like Jesus to do of the kind? These were once my mus

intelligent anything
ings, the impropriety of which I now perceive. For the death of Jesus was not sim
ply
a result of his own determination, it was an act of obedience to the Divine com
mand. Jesus died also, not merely to wash away the sins of the whole world, but
that believers at that time, and throughout all ages might sympathize with him in
his sorrows, highly esteem his doctrines, and consider that the object of his mis
sion was to save our souls; if in the attainment of that object he gave his body up
to the stroke and shed his blood, at the same time the most unutterable
enduring
agonies, then his extraordinary virtue and unbounded benevolence exceeded the
circle of nature's limits, and his love and abundant kindness were vast as the
deep
bounds of the habitable globe; knowing this all who believe in him should embody
his feelings, and further
go to proclaim his gospel for the information of the whole
world, so that all might of its benefits; for Jesus died for the redemption
partake
of mankind.
Some have objected, that those who enter this religion do not pay divine hon
ours to spirits, nor sacrifice to ancestors, which deem necessary
they things; they
are these few, that if they conform to the demands of this
apprehensive, entirely
new a snare. To which
faith, they will fall into itmay [be] replied, that the Creator
of heaven and earth is the only being who ought to be worshipped. Those indi
viduals who during their lifetime acted uprightly, and at death became intelligent
spirits, should be had in due estimation, and held up for imitation; but to bring
animals and burn
incense, in order to do service to them, would be improper. The
is a kind of service
of sacrifice in God alone;
offering employed honouring departed
ancestors are
merely the ghosts of men, how could we dare to offend against the
great law of propriety by sacrificing to them and thus bring guilt upon ourselves;
if we their descendants are their example,
enabled and bring no disgrace
to imitate
upon our we is shall

necessary do to
all that the claims of the
progenitors, satisfy
What would be the use of a number of ceremonies?
departed. practizing [sic] empty
On the above two questions I formerly had my doubts, but now new light has
suddenly broken in upon my mind; if it had not been for the secret aid and inward
teaching of God and Christ accompanied by daily hints from my religious instruc
tor how could I have attained to this? Jesus in the course of his instructions has
handed down the ten commandments that we might have a settled rule of life; he
has also established one day in seven that we might have a settled for pub
period
lic worship: in employing his doctrine for the instruction of mankind, he has dis
played diligence without weariness, and in sacrificing his life for the establishment
of his doctrine he has endured ignominy without regret. He has taught us to hon
our one God with a sincere heart, and to serve one Lord without distraction of
mind: and he has told us
that although the body may perish the soul will continue
to survive. The
writings by his disciples dive deep into the true origin of
prepared
and open out the profoundest men the
things mysteries. They incessantly taught
duties of benevolence and rectitude, and now after the lapse of eighteen centuries
their doctrine becomes more and more clear, exalted and intelligent expres
beyond
sion or There is something, however which has occurred to me, and
conception.
which I should like to lay before you. For a long time I have had this idea, but
standing in no very close relation to you, I did not presume to propound it. Now,
however, having conceived the desire of ranking myself among your disciples, and
thus becoming united as in one I do not dare to conceal my views any
body, longer.
The doctrines of Jesus have entered China ever since the Ming dynasty, for these
240 years. As the first propagation of this faith Seu-kuang-ke (Paul Siu) [Xu
%.%^, and others several works on
Guangqi 1562-1633] composed elementary
astronomy, which were admitted into the and became famous in
imperial library,
as may now be verified on reference to the records; at that time this reli
history,
was were some
gion of Jesus widely diffused, and its adherents numerous, while
clever and distinguished scholars aided the spread of the doctrines and stopped the
mouths of gainsayers. How is it that recently no such aids have been called forth?
Can it be that modern Europeans, crossing the sea to come hither, possess neither
the talent nor of Matthew Ricci and his followers? This cannot
learning [Matteo]
be the cause; it must certainly be because in inducing Chinese to embrace this reli
gion, its propagators have not lighted upon the right description of individuals. I
have heard that in various places, those who enter this religion are for the most
part and men, without either talents or when

ignorant incapable acquirements;
asked as to the doctrines of Jesus, they are confused and can give no correct account
of them. On the sabbath day, they merely follow the generality and comply with
the usual forms, in order to please their employers, without any desire to pray to
God. Although there may be among them some who believe the doctrine and wish
to learn, yet which of them has ever himself from the rest the
distinguished by
composition of works forth their views on the of the new faith?
setting subject
It is true indeed that in adherents no distinction should be made
receiving
between wise and talented or defective, and that it is all one so as
simple, long
they repent; yet to receive people indiscriminately, interferes with the characteris
tics of discipleship, and when men hear of such proceedings are
intelligent they
disposed to halt before making application. For the past ten years there have been
various attempts made to introduce the religion of Christ in this part of China,
but the native teachers who have been employed for this purpose have been gen
erally speaking possessed of no very extensive acquirements and have had a very
with books and doctrines. Hence it has come to pass that
superficial acquaintance
238 PATRICK HANAN
the books which they have composed, though given out
in the morning for distri
bution, have before evening been shoved into the waste

paper basket. One of the
commentators on Confucius has said, "When are not
expressions polished, they
will not travel far." It is true that in the composition of books is essen
plainness
tial, but to this some must be added, and when and polish are
polish plainness
combined, the work becomes beautiful and worthy of perusal. Now the various
books of the religion of Jesus are not destitute of excellent but the style
meaning,
in which are written and coarse, the reader before he has
they being rugged got
a feels inclined to go to sleep. Some of these books have
through single chapter
been written in the common brogue of different districts, with the view of render
ing them easily intelligible to ploughmen and mechanics, little thinking that by
such productions a great waste of funds has been occasioned, without the slightest
benefit to the cause. In my humble whenever a book is written, it should
opinion,
excel both in the principles inculcated and in the mode of statement, combining
both the ornate and the substantial. When works are thus composed, accomplished
and learned men will them in the circles, while and
praise higher ploughmen
mechanics among the lower classes will not be uninfluenced them. There will
by
be no need to accompany such writings by explanations, and they will travel with
out fear into every region.
I wish to make another remark if I be not thought too prolix. The of
people
China all honor Confucius as the teacher and of all ages, and it is not
exemplar
suitable to heap indiscriminate censure upon him. Some Christians seem
professing
very fond of Confucius, and say, our with that of Confucius is the same
religion
in principle, the difference is merely in minor points. Others abuse Confucius say
ing, he was mistaken in principle and erred in doctrine. I conceive that each indi
vidual religion must have its abstruse speculations and hidden mysteries, in which
they cannot all agree; it is not necessary, therefore, to insist on the reli
making
gion of Confucius agree with that of Christ, neither is it necessary to reproach
Confucius; let each system be studied with a view to the good that may be obtained
from it.
The above remarks are the result of observations accumulated the period
during
of my residence here and of examinations personally made. European scholars treat
men them constantly, and trust them but they are
liberally, employ thoroughly,
rather defective in their estimation of character: hence the Chinese mask their fail
ing in this
respect, and make their market of them.108 They observe their short
and set to work to cheat them. The great fault lies here?those who are
comings
called honest are not honest, and those who are denominated virtuous are not vir
tuous. In thus treating on the subject of entering I have touched on a few
religion,
other points, but I will not enlarge. I have merely set forth my humble views,
which are presented in all sincerity. If you, my teacher, exercise the requisite pen
etration in examining the springs of action and the necessary firmness in deciding
what is to be done every case will be manifested, and secret motives
clearly brought
to light, in an extraordinary and unprecedented degree.
I.e., make profits from them.

If you me as worthy of being ranked among the number of your disci
regard
me the necessary instruction and encouragement, so that I can make
ples, giving
due progress in the study of religion, I shall then be enabled to get a glimpse of
the glories of the supreme, and know something of the mysterious doctrines of
Jesus. Cherishing this feeling I shall be contented while I live and happy when I
die. Whilst not unmindful of your extreme kindness, I should be to
being glad
compose a work on the of with the view of explaining the mys
subject religion,
teries of Christianity, which, on the grace of Jesus, would cir
depending widely
culate among my country-men, that they might know what they ought to follow
This a fulfillment
and obey. would only be of my long cherished intention, but, I
am also, be in accordance with your own desire and
persuaded design. Having
thus set forth my views and feelings, I submit the whole to your inspection.

The Bible As Chinese Literature. Medhurst, Wang Tao, and The Delegates' Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

The Bible As Chinese Literature. Medhurst, Wang Tao, and The Delegates' Version

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Bible As Chinese Literature. Medhurst, Wang Tao, and The Delegates' Version

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Harvard-Yenching Institute

by Westerners, was that of Bible translation. the Bible's

was chiefly in connection with the Bible that questions of transla

marily doctrinal. What drove each group of translators to attempt

Translating the Bible was seldom just a two-man enterprise. Al

every missionary had at least one Chinese assistant. The earliest

which resulted in the Delegates' Version published in 1852 (New

Testament) and 1854 (Old Testament), involved dozens of transla

successfully, it had to obtain at least one bible society's support, and

ably reluctant to publish a replacement unless the superiority of the

awkward. Here is Alexander Wylie's comment on the Morrison

expected, the attempt to render it literal, has degenerated into a

style of composition intolerably unidiomatic and disfigured by a pro

equipped with commentaries and notes.4 Not long afterward Walter

Henry Medhurst (1796-1857), stationed in Batavia, tried without

Guangzhou to join him in translating the entire Bible. It was largely

possible to speak of a Medhurst-G?tzlaff translation. Finally, in

lines for a translation that came to be known as the Delegates' Ver

literary quality, it was found by many missionaries to beinadequate

usually given to Medhurst, the leading spirit among the delegates,

MEDHURST'S APPROACH TO BIBLE TRANSLATION

Medhurst had made known his ideas about Bible translation

Prose," Hanlin Papers (Shanghai: Kelly and Walsh, 1894), p. 261.

1828 he boldlypointed out the "foreign and awkward style" of

presume to do, considering my poor attainments in the language

Early in 1834 Medhurst began translating and compiling Fuyin

14, 1834 ("an entirely new translation"). Bridgman says

the Bible palatable to the pagan Chinese. Entirely forgetting how

style of translation more suited to the Chinese taste, without appear

bring out a second edition but

plea for permission to visit Guangzhou, partly to facilitate this work.

nearly complete. He expected to finish the whole of the New

By "American missionaries," Medhurst meant principally Elijah

strictly as possible in every case to the Greek text."18 A week or two

other missionaries in Guangzhou had all agreed that no new blocks

183420?Bridgman heard that Medhurst

Bridgman remarks, "His main business now is revision of the Bible,

If news of the revision

dering the Sacred

Medhurst had a clear

appropriate style for the Chinese translation: "When a Chinese in

express considerable dissatisfaction with our present versions of the

return from the voyage, Medhurst expressed a need for assistance

Epistles to the end of James."29 G?tzlaff and Morrison were in full

at this stage and never ventured a

parison with the Greek. In his rebuttal of this "intemperate" criti

chapters of Luke and Colossians, and specimens of free and literal

"difficulty and delicacy" of his undertaking; the "cause of God,"

opinions of several Chinese on the Morrison-Milne translation.

They include Zhu Delang fcWM, an assistant whom Medhurst had

ple." The Morrison-Milne version was

among the major English translations of the Bible, for example,

position taken by Medhurst's critics.

Medhurst's proposal was considered by the editorial committee

copies of the New Testament already printed be withdrawn from

occupied by a number of individuals, who, professing at first only

Trying hard to conceal his sense of outrage, Medhurst managed

rendering"). The use of paraphrase (free rendering) has long been