Issues Related to the Chinese Translation of “God”: A Study from a Historical Perspective

Abstract

This paper is an overview of the “Term Question” of the Holy Names in the history of Bible translation in China. “Term Question” in Chinese was focused on the proper rendering of the biblical God referred to as Hebrew term Elohim and Greek term Theos, as well as another Hebrew term YHWH. During the early period of Nestorian Christianity in Tang Dynasty China, there were various attempts at translating Christian terminology, some of which incorporated practices influenced by Buddhism. In the end of seventeenth century, the “Term Question” first arose among Roman Catholic missions between an indigenous Confucian term, Shàngdì, and a neologism, Tiānzhǔ. However, the majority of the arguments stemmed from the second phase of the Chinese “Term Question,” which revolved around nineteenth-century Protestant missionary activities in China. The “Term Question” of the Holy Names was a terminological controversy between an indigenous theistic term (Shàngdì), on the one hand, and a neologism (Tiānzhǔ) or a generic term (Shén), on the other hand. This question also reflects a fundamental choice in translation orientation: whether to primarily focus on the meaning of the original textual content or to prioritize the understanding of readers as the primary concern. This history of translation reflects significant issues that emerge when Christianity encounters Chinese culture.

1. Introduction

When discussing the issue of translation, dealing with the encounter of two cultures with complex systems involves numerous factors to consider, and finding a viable solution is not easy. This situation is particularly evident in translating the Bible into Chinese. It not only involves how the entire Bible should be translated but also presents significant challenges when considering the translation of important religious terminology into Chinese.

Christianity has a history of over a thousand years in China. However, there have been ongoing debates and differing suggestions regarding the translation of the names of the Creator and Savior in the Bible, which involved issues surrounding the Chinese rendering of the Hebrew transliteration Elohim (אלוהים), the Greek transliteration Theos (θεός), and the Hebrew Tetragrammaton YHWH (Hebrew theonym יהוה). These debates, known as the “Term Question,” touched on linguistic and theological issues and had implications for the religious beliefs of Chinese people.¹

Translating the word “God” from the Christian Bible into Chinese involves complex translation theory issues. Among other things, linguistic and cultural differences between the two languages must be considered, as well as the challenge of translating what cannot be translated. In addition, the translation should accurately reflect theological and religious concepts, taking into account historical, contextual, and denominational factors. Finally, the chosen translation should communicate effectively with the target audience and resonate with their cultural and religious backgrounds. The above problems have become the challenges that Chinese Bible translators have to face in the long history. To some extent, these challenges remain.

This article discusses the controversies surrounding the “Term Question” of Holy Names among Christian missionaries of different periods in the history of the Chinese Church and examines early Western missionaries’ understanding of Chinese culture and religion, the controversies and resolutions they sparked, and their impact to this day. Previous academic papers on the “Term Question” have mainly focused on the translation of Elohim/Theos and have paid less attention to the translation of YHWH. However, exploring the translation of YHWH also requires consideration of the translation of Elohim/Theos. Therefore, this article attempts to strike a balance between the two and discuss the principles and controversies involved in the translation process. The following sections are arranged in chronological order according to the history of the Chinese Church and introduce the perspectives of Nestorianism in the Tang (618–907) Dynasty and Catholicism in the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) Dynasties, followed by a discussion of the history of Protestant missionaries on this topic in the late Qing Dynasty and their influence to this day. From history, it is evident that the different translations of “God” reflect the challenges faced in translation when encountering the meeting of Chinese and Western cultures. Lastly, it is crucial to reflect upon and explore the significance of this translation history and the theoretical issues it raises regarding the translation of the Bible into Chinese.

This paper primarily adopts a historical discourse orientation, but it also touches upon translation theories and controversies, which will be discussed at the end. The translation of the Chinese Bible is a considerably complex issue, where the orientation dictated by church practices often carries more significance than theoretical considerations. The interaction between church traditions and doctrinal interpretations influences the final translation decisions. All of this can be observed to some extent in the history of translating “God” into Chinese.

2. Early translation of the Holy Names by the Nestorians in China

The earliest attempts to translate “God” of Christianity into Chinese can be traced back to the arrival of Nestorian missionaries during the Tang dynasty (618–907). Nestorianism came from the theology of Nestorius (c.386–c.451), Patriarch of Constantinople in the fifth century AD, and his followers. In the fifth century, Nestorianism emerged as a theological belief that emphasized a distinction between the human and divine natures of Jesus, asserting that there were two separate persons in Christ rather than a unified nature, which led to significant debates and controversies within the early Christian Church. Nestorianism was eventually condemned and excommunicated due to its theological teachings that were deemed incompatible with the orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ. However, Nestorianism continued to influence various regions and communities, particularly in the Persian Empire and the eastern reaches of the Byzantine Empire.

The Nestorian Christian Church in China was commonly known as the Dà Qín Jingjiao (大秦景教) in Chinese, which translates to “The Luminous Religion of Great Qin.” The term Dà Qín literally translates to “Great Qin” and was used to describe the Byzantine Empire or the Roman Empire due to its perceived similarities to the powerful ancient Chinese Qin (BC 221–207) Dynasty. It arrived in China in the seventh century and engaged in missionary activities during the Tang Dynasty.

There were more than ten extant Chinese translations of the Jingjiao (景教) in China from the middle of seventh century until the end of the eighth century. The term Elohim/Theos is variously translated in Nestorian literature spanning a century as Huáng fù ē luó hé (皇父阿羅訶 Elohim the Imperial Father), Fó (佛 Buddha), Tiān zūn (天尊 Heavenly Reverence), and Zhēn zhǔ (真主 True Lord). The phrase YHWH had been translated less frequently, but scholars believe that Tiān zūn xù suō fǎ (天尊序娑法) in the first line of the preface to the Psalm was “the law of the Lord YHWH.” Other translations included “Messiah” as Shì zūn (世尊 the World Honored One) and Mí shī hē (彌施訶 Messiah), etc. It is clear that Nestorian translations of the Holy Names are both phonetic (based on Syriac) and paraphrased, even borrowing Buddhist terminology.²

From the aforementioned translations, it can be observed that at that time, both transliteration and paraphrasing methods were employed, even borrowing popular religious terms from Chinese culture, without a fixed translation form. This indicates that Nestorian missionaries were still in the process of exploring suitable terminology. Due to the diverse religious landscape of Tang Dynasty China, with the presence of various foreign religions, there were different attempts made. However, by the end of the Tang Dynasty, Nestorian Christianity began to decline in China, and its influence gradually faded away. Nestorianism ceased to exist in mainland China, surviving only in the border regions of the north. While Nestorianism had some activity in China during the Yuan (1279–1368) Dynasty again, there was no evidence to suggest that Nestorian missionaries made any contributions to the translation of the Bible into Chinese.

During the Tang Dynasty, Nestorian missionaries faced opportunities and challenges when translating the Bible into Chinese. They benefited from the dynasty’s openness to foreign religions and received imperial support. However, they had to overcome linguistic and cultural barriers, navigate syncretism and opposition from traditional religions, and adapt Christianity to the local context. Their translation efforts, accommodation of Chinese culture, and engagement in cultural exchange were strategies they employed. When translating, Nestorian missionaries dealing with Chinese Buddhist or cultural terms employed various strategies. They sometimes opted for literal translations to maintain the original meaning, while adapting and syncretizing Christian concepts with existing terms in other cases. Explaining concepts using parallels and comparisons to Buddhist or Confucian teachings helped Chinese audiences understand Christianity. These strategies aimed to bridge the cultural and religious gaps and facilitate the acceptance of Christian concepts within the Chinese context.

3. Translation of Holy Name by Catholic Church in China

The Roman Catholic Church first came to China during the Yuan dynasty but later left at the fall of the Yuan dynasty. Although there are records of Catholic missionaries translating the Bible during the Yuan dynasty, this appears to have been done in Mongolian (the official language of the Yuan dynasty) rather than in Chinese, and no biblical texts have survived to this day. The revival of the Catholic Church in China came in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, through the efforts of Jesuit missionaries such as Matteo Ricci (1552–1610). These missionaries established missions, gained the favor of the imperial court, and attempted to integrate Chinese culture with Catholicism.³

During this period, Catholic missionaries wrote and translated numerous doctrinal works in Chinese. However, they only partially translated selected Bible verses in certain works, including interpretations of biblical passages, descriptions of biblical events, and translations of specific biblical texts. Due to the Catholic Church’s use of the Latin Bible, their primary consideration in translating religious terminology into Chinese was to reflect the translations from Latin. When considering how to translate the Latin term Deus into Chinese, the missionaries of the late Ming era had various translations such as Shén (神), Shàngdì (上帝), or Tiānzhǔ (天主). Generally, Jesuit missionaries leaned toward using the term Shàngdì with a Confucian influence, although there were internal disputes within the Jesuit during the early period.⁴ However, among the Catholic missionaries in China, there was not just one single suggestion. For examples, Dominican and Franciscan missionaries preferred an innovative term Tiānzhǔ.

In the early eighteenth century, a dispute known as the “Rites Controversy” in China emerged between Jesuit missionaries and other orders, as well as between the Catholic Church and the Chinese imperial court. This refers to a controversy that arose within the Catholic Church during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries regarding the compatibility of certain Chinese traditional rituals and ancestor worship with Catholic doctrine. The controversy primarily revolved around the question of whether these cultural practices were purely secular or had religious elements that conflicted with Catholic beliefs. At that time, Catholic missionaries in China had many debates regarding how to translate the term Deus. Interestingly, this debate involved not only Western missionaries but also the opinions of Chinese Catholics. For example, Yan Mo (嚴謨, dates unknown), an early Qing Chinese Catholic, wrote Dì tiān kǎo (帝天考 Examination of God and Heaven), addressing the ongoing debate surrounding the terms Shàngdì, Tiān(天), and Tiānzhǔ in the Catholic context.⁵

Although the opinion of Yan Mo was just an example from a minority of Chinese Catholics, it highlighted a translation issue. In the past, Bible translation was primarily carried out by Western missionaries with little involvement from Chinese believers. However, Chinese is the primary language of Chinese believers, not Western missionaries. The question arose as to how much input Chinese believers, as the main users of Chinese, could have in translating such important religious terminology. In the early days, Western missionaries were the main translators of the Bible, with Chinese believers playing only a supporting role. This issue only became clear in the twentieth century with the translation of the Protestant Chinese Bible, which emphasized that Chinese believers should be the primary translators of the Chinese Bible.

In the early eighteenth century, the Holy See of Roman Catholic issued a decree instructing Catholics to adopt the term Tiānzhǔ and declared it as the appropriate translation for the Latin term Deus, thereby prohibiting the use of terms such as Shàngdì or Tiān. This decree effectively ended the controversy over divine titles within Catholicism.⁶ Subsequently, Louis Antoine de Poirot (1735–1813), a Jesuit missionary from France, used the term Tiānzhǔ in his translation of the Bible into Beijing Mandarin.

Regarding the translation of YHWH, it specifically pertains to passages in the Old Testament (OT). YHWH is considered the personal and sacred name of God, and it is usually not spoken aloud in Jewish tradition. When Jews encounter this term, they would pronounce it as Adonai (אֲדֹנָי, meaning “my Lord,” and it is pronounced as “ah-doh-NYE”) to avoid directly uttering the Holy Name.⁷ In medieval times, Jewish scholars added vowel markings from the vowels of Adonai to the consonants of the divine name. Catholic Bible translations followed a similar approach, translating YHWH as Shàngzhǔ (the Highly Lord上主), which clearly stems from the fact that the Latin Vulgate translation did not directly translate YHWH, but rendered it as the Latin word Dominus (the Lord). In the OT portion of Louis Antoine de Poirot’s translation, the term Zhǔ (the Lord主) was sometimes used, and at times Shàngzhǔ was used while criticizing the transliteration of YHWH as Yé huǒ wǎ (耶火瓦) or Yē hé huá (耶和華) in the annotations. Similarly, in 1968, the Catholic Studium Biblicum Version (思高聖經, the commonly used Bible in the Chinese Catholic Church) generally translates YHWH as Shàngzhǔ. However, in this translation, there are also a few instances where certain OT passages are transliterated as Yǎwēi (雅威). From the perspective of the Studium Biblicum Version, both Shàngzhǔ and Yǎwēi carry the same meaning.

As for the more recent Catholic translations of the Bible, there are occasional instances where YHWH is directly phonetically rendered, e.g., Yǎwěi (雅瑋). This is because in modern times, it is generally accepted that YHWH with the added vowel should be “YaH-WeH” (rather than “Ya-Ho-WaH”).⁸ Basically, the Chinese Catholic Church nowadays generally uses Tiānzhǔ as the standard translation of Deus, while YHWH is now mainly translated as Shàngzhǔ. However, there are also different translations of YHWH, and there is a lack of uniformity among the various translations.

4. Translation of Holy Name by Protestantism after the nineteenth century

4.1 Early approach

In the eighteenth century, the Catholic Church in China underwent a decision by the Roman Pontiff, which determined the translation of “God” as “天主” (Tiānzhǔ) and the translation of YHWH as “上主” (Shàngzhǔ). However, Protestant churches did not have a mechanism for making collective decisions like the Roman Catholic Church. Each Christian denomination within Protestantism independently decided on the approach to translate the Holy Name. Consequently, the history of Bible translation in Protestant churches is marked by numerous divergences. Yet it is precisely because of this that the attempts at Protestant translation reflect more profoundly the issues involved in translating into Chinese.

In the Chinese translation of the Bible by Protestantism, there has been ongoing debate on how to translate the Holy Name into Chinese. Early Protestant missionaries considered the perspectives presented in the Catholic liturgical controversies but did not reach a definitive consensus. However, they clearly did not wish to adopt the Catholic decision to use Tiānzhǔ. Robert Morrison (1782–1834), the first Protestant missionary in China from the London Missionary Society (LMS), consulted the Bible translation by William Milne (1785–1822), one of the colleagues from the LMS who assisted Morrison in Bible translation, and, in his 1810 translation of the Acts of the Apostles, rendered Elohim/Theos or “God” as Shén (神) and Pneuma or “Holy Spirit” as Shèngfēng (聖風).

When Morrison began translating the Chinese Bible, he referred to a manuscript by a Catholic missionary named Jean Basset (1662–1707). Basset was a French Catholic missionary of Missions étrangères de Paris, arrived in China in 1689 and began his missionary work in Sichuan from 1702 until his death in Guangzhou in 1707. He translated the four Gospels of the New Testament (NT) into Chinese, as well as the Book of Acts, Pauline Epistles, and the first chapter of Hebrews, although these translations were not published.⁹ Morrison made reference to Basset’s translation of the name of God but did not fully adhere to it. By the time of Morrison’s 1823 Bible translation, he consistently used Shén for Elohim/Theos and Shén zhī fēng (神之風) for Pneuma.¹⁰

However, William Milne also used Shàngdì (上帝). In his work titled Shang Di Sheng Jiao Gong Hui Men (which meant: “The Gate of the Sacred Religion of God,” 上帝聖教公會門), which he wrote under the pen name Bóàizhě (which meant: “lover of humanity,” 博愛者), he stated in the preface: “If we use terms such as Shéntiān (神天), Shénzhǔ (神主), or Zhēnhuó Shén (真活神), they all refer to the supreme and unique God, who has no equal or partner. It should not be assumed that the use of multiple names implies the existence of multiple gods, as there is only one and no other.”¹¹ Milne clearly believed that Shàngdì and Shén were interchangeable. However, this viewpoint expressed by Milne was not emphasized or adopted by subsequent missionaries.

During the same period in Serampore, a city in West Bengal of India, Joshua Marshman (1768–1837), a missionary of the Baptist Missionary Society (BMS), and his assistants used Shén to translate Elohim/Theos in early Bible translations and Shénhún (神魂) to translate Pneuma. However, he occasionally also used the translation Tiānzhǔ. In the 1822 complete Bible translation, Marshman consistently used Shén for Elohim/Theos and Shèng Shénfēng (聖神風) for Pneuma.

Following Robert Morrison and Joshua Marshman, Walter H. Medhurst (1796–1857), Karl F. G. Gützlaff (1803–1851), Elijah C. Bridgman (1801–1861), and John R. Morrison (1814–1843) collaborated on a joint translation of the New Testament (NT) in 1837. They used Shàngdì to translate Elohim/Theos and Shèngshén (聖神) to translate Pneuma. During this period, Gützlaff also followed a similar approach in his OT translation, although he occasionally translated Pneuma as Shàngdì zhī Shén (上帝之神), meaning “the Spirit of God.”

Based on the above discussion, there was no consensus on the translation of the Holy Names during this early period. As for the translation of YHWH by Protestant missionaries in the early nineteenth century, it can be divided into two categories. One category is similar to the Catholic Bible, translating YHWH as Zhǔ (主) or a similar term meaning “Lord.” The other category involves transliteration based on the pronunciation.

The early primary approach was to translate YHWH as Zhǔ. For example, Robert Morrison and William Milne translated the OT’s YHWH as Shénzhǔ (神主) or Zhǔ. In the late 1830s, Karl Gützlaff’s translation used Huáng Shàngdì (皇上帝) for the OT’s YHWH, and his version influenced the revision of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Bible in 1853. The knowledge of Christianity of Hong Xiuquan (1814–1864), leader of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, stemmed from an early Chinese Pastor Liang Fa’s Gospel tract Quàn Shì Liáng Yán (勸世良言, which meant: “Good words of advice”) written in 1832, which employed different terms for Elohim/Theos, such as Shéntiān Shàngdì (神天上帝), Shén Yéhuǒhuá (神爺火華), Shàngdì, and others, totaling over ten different translation methods. Hong later came into contact with Gützlaff’s Bible translation through Issachar J. Roberts (1802–1871), a Southern Baptist missionary at Canton (Guangzhou), thus influencing the translation terminology of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. In the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom’s literature, there were over thirty translation methods for the Holy Names, including Tiānfù Huáng Shàngdì (天父皇上帝) and Shèngfù (聖父). Taking the example of the OT printed by the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom in 1853, Genesis 2:4 was translated as Shàngzhǔ Huáng Shàngdì (上主皇上帝), aligning with Gützlaff’s translation.

During the Taiping Rebellion (1853–1864), which was a rebellion against the Qing dynasty, the religious terminology supported by the movement became prevalent in the areas it controlled. However, with the collapse of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, these religious terms became elements subject to criticism and rejection. This added complexity to the process of translating Christian terminology into Chinese.

At the same time, the Bible translations of the Baptist missionaries also tended to transliterate when translating YHWH.¹² Joshua Marshman’s complete Bible translation was a compilation of previously published volumes (from 1810 to 1822) and exhibited inconsistent renderings for YHWH. In the early sections of Genesis, YHWH was translated as Zhǔ or Shénzhǔ, while from Genesis 9:26 onward, the OT texts were transliterated as Yéhèwá (耶賀華).

In the decade following Marshman, Baptist missionaries did not produce significant achievements in Bible translation, and the transliteration of Yéhèwá did not show any further influence. Another Baptist missionary, John L. Shuck (1812–1863), in his 1841 work Shàngdì zhī Mìng (which meant: “The Commandments of God,” 上帝之命),¹³ translated YHWH as Shàngdì, making him an exception among Baptist missionaries. Subsequently, William Dean (1807–1895) transliterated YHWH as Yàohuá (耀華), while Josiah Goddard (1813–1854), in his 1849 translation of Genesis (covering only the first six chapters), used the translation Zhǔshén, but later in his 1850 Genesis translation, he used the transliteration Yàohuá.

Therefore, by the 1840s, both Elohim/Theos and YHWH had significantly different approaches, which eventually became a major issue in the translation debate of the contemporary Delegates’ Version.

4.2 Debates during the translation period of the Delegates’ Version

When China opened its doors to trade under the influence of the “Treaty of Nanjing” in 1842, representatives from British and American missionary societies convened in Hong Kong in 1843 and decided to translate a Chinese version with a unified name and terminology. Eventually, the NT was published in 1852, followed by the Old Testament (OT) in 1854, becoming the first Chinese Union Version. This translation, known as the Delegates’ Version (委辦本 DV), was a collaborative effort among Protestant missionaries from different denominations and nationalities.

However, the debates over the Holy Names also emerged during the translation of the DV in the 1840s. The translation process of the DV was marked by disagreements, as missionaries with varying theological traditions, missionary concepts, and understanding of Chinese culture worked together to translate the Bible. During this period, the discussion regarding the Holy Names centered primarily on whether to translate Elohim/Theos as Shàngdì or Shén. As for YHWH, the DV chose to transliterate it as Yehovah (耶和華), which became the main approach for translating YHWH in subsequent translations until today.

In early 1845, when the translation of the DV was underway, an article in the Chinese Repository, a prominent English-language periodical published in China during the nineteenth century, compared the translations of John 1:1 in six different versions:¹⁴ “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” The article noted that two terms had various translations. The first term “Word” (logos) was translated as both Yan (言) and Dao (道), while the other term “God” (Theos) was translated as Shén in older versions and as Shàngdì in more recent translations. The author expressed a preference for the translations Dao and Shén and inclined toward translating the term “beginning” in John 1:1 as Yuanshi (元始). This article in the Chinese Repository marked the beginning of the discussions surrounding the Holy Names issue in the translation of the DV.

Within the translation team of the DV, there were two factions that advocated for the translations Shàngdì and Shén, respectively. Those in favor of translating the Holy Name as Shàngdì aimed to demonstrate that Shàngdì transcended the concept of a singular entity in Chinese religious beliefs, drawing evidence from traditional Chinese classics and celestial worship rituals. They argued that Shàngdì was an absolute term rather than a proper name. Walter H. Medhurst, one of the main translators of the DV, supported the use of Shàngdì in his translation.¹⁵ Other missionaries, particularly British missionaries, held similar views. For example, James Legge (1815–1897), who participated in the early stages of the translation of the DV, initially believed that Shén was an appropriate translation. However, upon his return to China from Britain, after careful consideration, he embraced the translation of Shàngdì. Legge’s approach to the Holy Names issue, on one hand, reflected the Christian refusal to acknowledge that nonbelievers possessed the concept of “God,” but on the other hand, it elevated the religious status of Confucianism.¹⁶

As for those who advocated for translating the Holy Name as Shén, their viewpoint is particularly evident in the works of William Jones Boone (1811–1864), a missionary of the Anglican Church. Boone believed that Chinese religion was characterized by a pantheon of gods, and Shàngdì was simply the name of the chief among them. He argued that just as the ancient translators did not use terms like Zeus or Jupiter to translate Elohim, it would be inappropriate to use Shàngdì to translate the Holy Name. Instead, Shén was the term that referred to the Supreme Being. Boone considered it an epithet denoting the highest order of existence.¹⁷

The debate between Medhurst and Boone regarding the Holy Name reached an impasse, leading them to write separate publications and submit them for resolution to the British and Foreign Bible Society (BFBS) in the late 1840s. However, both the BFBS and the LMS were unable to determine which term was more appropriate [31]. Initially, the BFBS did not express approval for the translation using Shén, but they also did not strongly propose or insist on any particular alternative. As for the American Bible Society (ABS), they were reluctant to adopt a specific translation, even though they subtly leaned toward Shén. By 1850, in a special report by the ABS, it was suggested that Shén should be used to translate Elohim/Theos [32].

As a result, the two Bible societies reached different conclusions regarding the translation of the Holy Name in the DV of the NT. Due to the split within the committee responsible for the translation, the BFBS published the DV of the NT with Shàngdì as the translation for Theos. On the other hand, the translation using Shén was seen in the Baptist versions during this period, as well as in the subsequent translations by William Dean (1807–1895) and Michael S. Culbertson (1819–1862), which were supported by the ABS.

During the 1840s to 1850s, the Chinese Repository featured numerous English essays on this subject. In the 1850s, missionaries, including scholars who were not involved in the translation of the DV, expressed various opinions.¹⁸ The debate over the Holy Names was not limited to the missionary community in China; it also generated wide-ranging discussions among Bible societies in Europe, the United States, and publishers of the Bible. Reports on the controversy surrounding the Holy Names during the translation of the DV were also found in American newspapers.¹⁹ Even after the publication of the DV in the 1850s, the debate on the divine name did not cease. Numerous arguments from different perspectives were published in the Chinese Repository from the 1840s to 1850s, as well as in the Chinese Recorder, a prominent English-language publication in China during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, from the 1870s onward and various pamphlets.

In the 1860s, this issue somewhat subsided, although there were other viewpoints, and at that time, Protestant Bibles only had versions using Shàngdì and Shén. In the 1870s to 1880s, a new generation of missionaries reignited the debate on the Holy Names and discussed how to translate Elohim/Theos. Proposed translations during that time included Tiandi (天帝), Dadi (大帝), Di (帝), Tianshen (天神), Tian (天), Tianfu (天父), as well as transliterations such as Allah (安拉) and the Nestorian Aloha (阿羅訶). However, it appears that these suggestions were not adopted and were not found in any published Chinese Bible translations.²⁰

During this time, missionaries paid more attention to how Chinese Christians themselves understood these terms. In 1877, the Wànguó Gōngbào (萬國公報, Globe Magazine) in China issued a call for papers, inviting readers to write about the translation issue of the Holy Name. As a result, Chinese Christians and foreign missionaries expressed their own opinions, and the discussion lasted for a year, becoming an important participation by Chinese believers in this issue.²¹ However, Chinese Christians held different positions in this debate, and their methods of argumentation differed from those of the missionaries.²²

4.3 Samuel I. J. Schereschewsky and the Peking Mandarin Version

In the late 1870s, Samuel I. J. Schereschewsky (1831–1906), a missionary from the American Episcopal Church Mission, proposed translating “God” as Tiānzhǔ and “gods” as Shén, sparking a new round of discussion.²³

Schereschewsky, who was of Jewish descent, translated versions in vernacular Chinese and Mandarin during the late nineteenth century.²⁴ Perhaps due to being Jewish, he tended to embrace the Jewish traditional practice of not transliterating YHWH. Initially, he favored using Shàngzhǔ (上主) and had employed this term in the Mandarin translation of the Book of Common Prayer in 1863. However, when he translated the OT in 1864, he suggested translating “God” as Tiānzhǔ and “gods” as Shén, basing his proposal on the practices found in the Septuagint, Biblia Vulgata, English Bible, and most modern Western translations. Furthermore, he proposed using Zhǔ to translate “Jehovah” in accordance with those translations. In Schereschewsky’s later versions, Tiānzhǔ, Shàngdì, and Shén were used in different editions. For him, these three terms are clearly interchangeable, and this perspective is also a common view among Chinese Christians today.

Schereschewsky’s adoption of a sacred name used in Catholicism influenced the decision of the translation committee of the Peking (today “Beijing”) Mandarin Version, which aimed to translate suitable for the Mandarin spoken in northern China during the 1860s and 1870s. This injection of a new element further fueled the debate. The Peking Mandarin Version of the NT was completed in 1872 and underwent multiple subsequent editions. At least five different versions of the NT were published in the Peking Mandarin Version, using the terms Tiānzhǔ, Shén, Zhēn shén (真神), Shàngdì, and Shàngzhǔ (上主), making it the most diverse attempt by Protestantism to employ multiple translated names within a single version.²⁵

Schereschewsky’s Mandarin translation of the OT was completed and published in 1874. In 1878, it was merged with the Peking Mandarin Version NT, becoming the most widely circulated Mandarin translation in the northern regions of China prior to the publication of the Chinese Union Version (和合本, UV). In Schereschewsky’s OT Mandarin translation, he suggested using the term Tiānzhǔ to translate “God,” while predominantly using Zhǔ to translate YHWH. However, in a few passages, he adopted the transliterated name Yēhéhuá (耶和華). For example, when Tiānzhǔ appeared alongside, it would be rendered as Yēhéhuá Tiānzhǔ (耶和華天主), as seen in Genesis 2:4. When Adonai and YHWH appeared together, he also used Zhǔ Yēhéhuá (主耶和華), as seen in Genesis 15:2&8. Similarly, in the easy classical Chinese translation of the OT,²⁶ Zhǔ was used to translate YHWH, but Yēhéhuá was occasionally employed in the book of Genesis, particularly in passages involving the Holy Name, while Schereschewsky’s usage in other contexts also displayed flexibility.

Schereschewsky’s easy classical Chinese Bible was first published in 1902 and subsequently reprinted in 1913 (Shén edition) and 1927 (Shàngdì edition), indicating the usage of both the Shén and Shàngdì translations. In later revised editions, he even considered replacing Yēhéhuá Tiānzhǔ (耶和華天主) and Zhǔ Yēhéhuá (主耶和華) with Zhǔ Tiānzhǔ (主天主). However, the Bible Society was concerned that this modification would not be accepted by missionaries, and thus, the old translation was retained. Although Schereschewsky’s approach was not adopted by contemporary missionaries, it resurfaced in some translations over a century later, demonstrating the insightfulness of his translational methodology.²⁷

4.4 Attempts after the Union Version

The Union Version (和合本 UV) is a Bible translation jointly translated by missionaries in China in the late nineteenth century. This project was initiated in 1890 during the General Conference of Missionaries in China with the aim of creating a unified translation. Originally, there were plans to publish separate unified translations in literary and vernacular Chinese, including classical Chinese, easy classical Chinese, and Mandarin. However, significant changes occurred in the Chinese language in the early twentieth century, with a shift toward a simpler writing style gradually replacing Classical Chinese. This led to the Mandarin UV (later renamed the Guoyu Union Version 國語和合本) being completed and published in 1919, becoming the most widely circulated Chinese translation of the twentieth century. The current commonly used UV in Chinese churches refers to the Guoyu Union Version.

During the translation period of the UV in the 1890s, it was widely recognized that the issue was complex. However, reaching a consensus seemed elusive. In 1904, a missionary conference proposed a solution suggesting the translation of “God” as Shàngdì and “Spirit” as Ling (靈). A letter accompanied by a questionnaire was sent to all mission stations seeking opinions. This marked the final attempt to resolve the controversy over the Holy Names, but it did not fully reconcile the differences.²⁸ As the UV translation project decided to avoid addressing the Holy Name issue and allowed Protestant denominations to independently determine their preferred translations, it became a convention, and the entire matter was set aside.

However, in the 1930s, discussions on the Holy Names issue persisted within the Lutheran Church. In 1932, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, located in Missouri, USA, elected a committee to study the historical aspects of the Holy Name controversy. The committee recommended translating “God” and “gods” as Shén, but their suggestions had no significant impact.²⁹ Over the course of the subsequent half-century, there has been no further discourse on this particular issue.

In 2010, the revision of the UV was completed by the Hong Kong Bible Society with the assistance of the United Bible Societies. This project which named the Revised Chinese Union Version (RCUV) aimed to maintain the original style of the UV while revising it based on the original texts. Regarding the versions, the RCUV coexisted with both the Shàngdì and Shén editions. However, there were no changes made to the term Yēhéhuá. The revisers of the RCUV recognized that the Chinese transliteration of YHWH was not accurate. Many newly revised English translations have replaced “Jehovah” with the capital letters “LORD,” and there are opinions suggesting that the term Yēhéhuá should not be retained. However, due to the long-standing tradition of the Chinese Church in using the term Yēhéhuá, the revisers of the RCUV decided to maintain the original translation without making any changes to this term.

The translation of Bible publishing within China today does not necessarily reflect any specific inclination of the churches. For the general believers and even the general public, there is no significant distinction in the usage of Shàngdì and Shén anymore. As a result, modern Protestant Bibles now exist in two versions: the Shàngdì version and the Shén version, while the term Tiānzhǔ has become the preferred term among Catholics and Orthodox Christians.

For modern Christians, including those without faith, the different translations of “God” hold little distinction. Regardless of which term is used to refer to “God” in Chinese, they will understand it as the deity worshipped by Christians. Therefore, these three translated terms have become interchangeable, particularly for the average Chinese person who sees little difference between them. The choice of which term to use within a church is more influenced by the church’s traditions rather than by a difference in understanding of the translated terms.

5. The issues reflected in the translation of “God” into Chinese

After centuries of discussion, the Christian church has been unable to reach a consensus on the issue of sacred names. In fact, determining the most appropriate Chinese term to express the word “God” is not merely a linguistic or theological issue; it also involves how Christians understand the cultural, philosophical, and religious concepts underlying the Chinese language. Therefore, the questions raised in the debate over the translation of the divine name pertain to whether Chinese people are monotheists, polytheists, or pantheists; whether they have a belief in creation; whether they possess a concept of the true God; and what the nature and content of Chinese religion actually are. When a Chinese Christian uses a particular name to refer to God, and what that name means to them, as well as what they think and believe when using the term Shàngdì or Shén in Chinese, all these become crucial questions.

Such a situation also exists in other Asian languages, but it is particularly evident in Chinese. Moreover, since the translation of the Chinese Bible in the nineteenth century influenced other countries in East Asia, such as Japan and Korea, the discussion on Chinese divine names also extends to other languages.³⁰

It can be observed that over the past few centuries, various traditions within the Church had invested considerable effort in handling the translation of divine names, proposing approaches that aligned with their respective traditions. However, this has ultimately resulted in at least three completely different suggestions for “God” and two different translations, either transliteration or paraphrasing, for YHWH. Today, these diverse translation methods coexist, and achieving uniformity seems unlikely. This appears to be a rather rare example in the translation history of different languages worldwide.

From this lengthy history, it is evident that the translation into Chinese involves considerably complex issues, particularly concerning the crucial religious terminology of Christianity. Regarding this matter, Western missionaries in China held divergent views on the significance of translating the Bible. Firstly, they saw it as a crucial means of communicating Christian teachings to the Chinese population, recognizing the translation as a vital step in evangelization. Translating the Bible into Chinese would enable Chinese individuals to understand and engage with Christian concepts and narratives. Secondly, missionaries acknowledged the importance of adapting the biblical message to the Chinese language and culture. They aimed to find linguistic and cultural equivalents that resonated with Chinese readers, adapting biblical stories and finding appropriate Chinese terms for biblical concepts. This approach aimed to bridge the gap between Western and Chinese cultures, facilitating mutual understanding and cultural exchange. Moreover, Bible translation was perceived as not only evangelistic but also educational and literary in nature. Missionaries recognized the value of introducing Western literature, language, and thought through the translation process, contributing to the intellectual and cultural development of Chinese society. Lastly, some missionaries actively engaged in linguistic and translation scholarship, conducting research on the Chinese language to improve the accuracy and quality of their translations. For examples, missionaries like Robert Morrison and James Legge made notable contributions to Chinese language studies and translation theory, further enhancing the understanding and accessibility of the Bible.

However, there are evidently different orientations when it comes to translating the terminology of the Bible. The diverse approaches of Western missionaries in China toward translating the Bible into Chinese can be observed in the discussions of two Western translation scholars in the early nineteenth century, although there is no evidence to suggest that the missionaries had actually consulted their works. Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835),³¹ a German linguist and philosopher, and Père Jean-Pierre Abel-Rémusat (1788–1832),³² a French sinologist, engaged in a scholarly discourse regarding the nature and characteristics of the Chinese writing system and its impact on language and thought. The correspondence between these two linguists regarding the significance of Chinese word order reflected the issues that were manifested in the translation of Christian vocabulary into Chinese.³³

Humboldt argued that the Chinese writing system, which is logographic and represents meanings rather than sounds, influenced the cognitive processes and worldview of Chinese speakers. He suggested that the unique features of the Chinese writing system might hinder the expression of abstract or philosophical concepts, as the focus is primarily on concrete meanings associated with characters. In contrast, Père Rémusat acknowledged the challenges posed by the Chinese writing system but maintained that Chinese culture and philosophy had developed successfully despite these limitations. He emphasized the need to understand Chinese language and culture on its own terms, without imposing Western linguistic categories or judgments. This debate reflected broader discussions on the relationship between language, writing systems, and thought. Humboldt’s arguments highlighted the influence of language on cognition and the potential constraints imposed by writing systems, while Rémusat emphasized the resilience and adaptability of Chinese culture and language.

Despite the lack of scholarly terminology among Western missionaries in China when contemplating the translation of the Bible, they were essentially confronted with a dilemma: When translating the Bible into Chinese, should they prioritize fidelity to the original meaning of the Scriptures or adhere to the thought patterns of the Chinese language in presenting Christian terminology?

Translation theory has evolved over time to encompass a range of approaches and principles that guide translators in rendering texts into different languages. Within the realm of religious translation, particularly in the context of the Bible, scholars have explored the complex relationship between Holy Name term translation and its impact on the receiving culture and mythology. During the era when Western missionaries served as the primary translators of the Bible, they seemingly did not consider the complex issues involved in translation theory, but rather focused on the significance of these translation efforts for their missionary work. However, as Christianity spread in China, it encountered numerous interactions and conflicts within the culture. The translation of biblical terminology into Chinese faced many areas that required careful consideration.

Western missionaries, in their translation of the Chinese Bible, placed significant emphasis on adhering to the orientation of the original text. This attitude led the Chinese Church to value the principle of “formal equivalence,” which assesses whether the scripture in the Chinese Bible aligns with the meaning of the original text. This approach dominated the majority of Bible translations, sometimes resulting in Chinese scripture that proved challenging for Chinese readers to comprehend. However, by the mid-twentieth century, there emerged an attitude that aimed to align more closely with the reading habits of Chinese readers.

Eugene A. Nida (1914–2011), a prominent translation theorist in the twentieth century, is widely recognized for his work in the field of Bible translation. He advocated for a functional approach to translation, emphasizing the importance of conveying the equivalent meaning and impact of the source text in the target language. Nida believed that translation should not be limited to a word-for-word rendering, but should instead focus on the intended message and the effect it should have on the target audience. Nida introduced the concept of “dynamic equivalence,” which diverges from the approach of “formal equivalence” and focuses on capturing the dynamic relationship between the source text and the receptor language. He emphasized the need for translators to consider the cultural and linguistic differences between the source and target languages and to adapt the translation in a way that is natural and meaningful to the target audience.³⁴

The question of whether the primary focus in translation should be on preserving the meaning of the original text or ensuring the effectiveness of the translation based on the comprehension of Chinese readers is, indeed, a recurring issue encountered when foreign cultures or religions enter China. When compared to the translation efforts of foreign religions in China, particularly Buddhism, the characteristics of Christian translation work become more pronounced. With the introduction of Buddhism during the Han (206 BCE to 220 CE) Dynasty, efforts were made to translate Buddhist scriptures from their original languages, such as Sanskrit or Pali, into Chinese. This translation process aimed to make the teachings accessible to the Chinese population and to foster a deeper understanding of Buddhist doctrines. The translators faced the challenge of rendering complex philosophical concepts and unfamiliar religious terminology into the Chinese language while staying true to the original meaning and spirit of the texts. They employed various translation techniques, such as literal translation, paraphrasing, and adapting foreign terms to Chinese phonetics and cultural context. The translators often had to strike a balance between preserving the authenticity of the original texts and ensuring their comprehension by Chinese readers.

The translation theories employed in the translation of Buddhist and Christian texts in China display distinct characteristics, reflecting the unique philosophical and cultural contexts of each tradition. Buddhist translators aimed to capture the essential meaning of the original scriptures while adapting them to the Chinese cultural and linguistic milieu. The translators sought equivalents for Buddhist concepts in Chinese, often incorporating existing Chinese philosophical and religious vocabulary. The emphasis was on conveying the essence of Buddhist teachings rather than on adhering strictly to literal translation.

In contrast, Christian translation theory in China has shown a broader spectrum of approaches. Early Christian missionaries adopted a more literal approach to translation, prioritizing accuracy and faithfulness to the original biblical texts. They sought to convey the precise meaning of the Bible in Chinese, often using word-for-word translation. This mindset has had a profound impact on Chinese churches. Even to this day, many Chinese Christians, when considering the translation of biblical terms, often inquire first about whether such translations align with the original text. They prioritize this understanding of the Bible, even if they may not comprehend the grammar, syntax, or nuances of the original Hebrew or Greek. This mentality, to some extent, inherits the missionary vision of conveying the message of the Bible to the Chinese people.

However, as Christianity encountered cultural and linguistic challenges in China, missionaries began to explore more dynamic translation strategies. The translation mentioned above regarding Nida’s concept of “dynamic equivalence” represents a significant orientation in this regard. Some other translators employed paraphrasing, cultural adaptation, and even transliteration to convey Christian concepts effectively within the Chinese cultural context. This allowed for a greater degree of flexibility in translating biblical ideas while maintaining the core theological principles.

It can be observed that over the past few centuries, various traditions within the Church had invested considerable effort in handling the translation of divine names, proposing approaches that aligned with their respective traditions. However, this has ultimately resulted in at least three completely different suggestions for “God” and two different translations, either transliteration or paraphrasing, for YHWH.” Today, these diverse translation methods coexist, and achieving uniformity seems unlikely. This appears to be a rather rare example in the translation history of different languages worldwide.

The issue of Holy Name is by no means devoid of biased academic research, as the interpretation of Chinese religious traditions has always been framed within the context of Western Christianity. In considering a resolution, apart from scholarly discussions, the church tradition is also an almost unavoidable factor. The key to the issue of sacred names lies not only in the careful selection of words and phrases but also in how Catholic and Protestant missionaries understand the theological ideas of the Bible, as well as the cultural, philosophical, and religious concepts embedded in the Chinese language. In their quest to explore the translation of Holy Names, missionaries delved into the classics of Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism, and folk religions in China, aiming to find the most appropriate way to translate Holy Names through an analysis of the religious perspectives of the Chinese people. Research on this issue can demonstrate how missionaries understood the concepts of Chinese religion. Therefore, the translation of Holy Name represents an important endeavor to bridge biblical theology and Chinese culture.

The lack of a unified translated term for “God” in the Chinese Bible indicates that the issue as a whole remains unresolved. For over a century, the question of Holy Names has been a subject of extensive debate, marking the first large-scale exploration of the significance of Chinese religious beliefs from a perspective influenced by Western theological training. Regardless of the conclusions drawn, it reflects a reality: the encounter between Western Christian theology and Chinese religious culture is rich with aspects worthy of exploration.