UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The protestant missionaries as bible translators : mission and rivalry in China, 1807-1839 Tong, Clement Tsz Ming 2016

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


24-ubc_2016_september_tong_clement.pdf [ 11.04MB ]
JSON: 24-1.0306919.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0306919-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0306919-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0306919-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0306919-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0306919-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0306919-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

 THE PROTESTANT MISSIONARIES AS BIBLE TRANSLATORS: MISSION AND RIVALRY IN CHINA, 1807-1839  by Clement Tsz Ming Tong   A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF   DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in The Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (Religious Studies)   UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) July 2016  © Clement Tsz Ming Tong, 2016   ii ABSTRACT  The first generation of Protestant missionaries sent to the China mission, such as Robert Morrison and William Milne, were mostly translators, committing most of their time and energy to language studies, Scripture translation, writing grammar books and compiling dictionaries, as well as printing and distributing bibles and other Christian materials. With little instruction, limited resources, and formidable tasks ahead, these individuals worked under very challenging and at times dangerous conditions, always seeking financial support and recognition from their societies, their denominations and other patrons. These missionaries were much more than literary and linguistic academics – they operated as facilitators of the whole translational process, from research to distribution; they were mission agents in China, representing the interests and visions of their societies and patrons back home.   Using rare Chinese Bible manuscripts, including one that has never been examined before, plus a large number of personal correspondence, journals and committee reports, this study seeks to understand the first generation of Protestant missionaries in their own mission settings, to examine the social fabrics within which they operated as “translators”, and to determine what factors and priorities dictated their translation decisions and mission strategies. Although Morrison is often credited with being the first translator of the New Testament into Chinese, the truth of the matter is far more complex. The following study is designed to illustrate both the complexity of the historical process underlying the Protestant translations of the Bible, as well as the complexities attendant upon notions of translation and authorship. Recognizing how these translators interacted with one another and how they made use of their sources, and appreciating their continued struggle for support, recognition and patronage is the key to understanding their translation approaches and decision-making.   iii  PREFACE  This dissertation is an original and independent work by the author, Clement Tong.  A version of material from chapters 3 and 4 was presented in a paper titled “A Comparison between the Morrison Bible and the Chinese Union Version according to Yan Fu's translation principles of ‘Faithfulness, Accuracy, and Elegance’” at the 2012 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Chicago, and a paper titled “The Roman Connection – The Latin Vulgate Influence on the Chinese Bible” at the 2015 Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting in Atlanta.      iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT  .................................................................................. ii PREFACE   ................................................................................. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS  ................................................................................. iv LIST OF TABLES  ................................................................................. vi LIST OF FIGURES  ................................................................................ vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................... viii DEDICATION  ................................................................................. ix 1. INTRODUCTION  .................................................................................  1   1.1 Translation Traditions in China   ...................................................  13  1.2 Recent Trends in Biblical Translation Studies ................................ 23  1.3 The Complex World of Bible Translators ....................................... 29  1.4 Methodology  ................................................................................ 33 2. SERAMPORE AND THE BAPTIST CHINA MISSION  ........................  40  2.1 The Armenian Translator ................................................................ 42  2.2 Textual Analysis of Lassar’s Matthew of 1807 .............................. 49   2.2.1 The Use of Buddhist Terminology ......................................... 50   2.2.2 A Quest for the Source Texts ................................................. 57   2.2.3 Phonetic Characters and Southern Chinese Characteristics ... 67 3. THE BEGINNING OF THE MISSION IN CHINA ................................... 85  3.1 The Years of Preparation ................................................................ 85  3.2 The Manuscript ............................................................................... 89  v  3.3 Robert Morrison’s Arrival in Canton .............................................. 96  3.4 The Acts of the Apostles of 1810 .................................................. 100  3.5 Morrison’s use of the Basset Manuscript – Luke of 1811 ............ 105  3.6 Morrison’s use of the Basset Manuscript – other books ............... 124 4. PARTNERSHIP AND RIVALRY - THE COMPLEX WORLD OF THE FIRST PROTESTANT TRANSLATORS ................................................................ 151  4.1 The Clear Goal .............................................................................. 155  4.2 The Promoter  .............................................................................. 161  4.3 The Competitor ............................................................................. 179 5. THE POWER OF PATRONAGE AND FAME ....................................... 202  5.1 Initial Reception of the First Chinese Bibles ................................ 203  5.2 The baptizô (βαπτίζω) Controversy .............................................. 208  5.3 Fame and Legacy .......................................................................... 222   5.3.1 Literal Style of Basset, Morrison, and Marshman ............ 224   5.3.2 Legacy Threatened ............................................................ 232   5.3.3 Improved Approach, Better Results .................................. 240 CONCLUSION  .............................................................................. 244 BIBLIOGRAPHY  .............................................................................. 253 APPENDIX   Influence of the First Bible Translations on Later Versions ............... 278    vi LIST OF TABLES  Table 2.1 Use of Buddhist terminology in Lassar and Marshman ............... 54 Table 2.2 Translation of “Jehovah” in the early Chinese Bibles ................. 65 Table 2.3 Comparison of Chinese translated names in four versions .......... 77 Table 3.1 Comparison of Acts 1:1-15 in two versions ............................... 108 Table 3.2 Comparison of Acts 1:1-15 in two versions ............................... 110 Table 3.3 The morphology of Basset’s Harmony of Gospels .................... 116 Table 3.4 Comparison of Luke 1:1-15 in two versions .............................. 120 Table 3.5 Comparison of John 1:1-13 in two versions .............................. 124 Table 3.6 Morrison’s NT translation progress by the years ....................... 128 Table 3.7 Comparison of Luke 12:16-21 in two versions .......................... 130 Table 3.8 Comparison of Luke 24:3-9 in two versions .............................. 130 Table 3.9 Comparison of John 10:7-15 in two versions ............................ 133 Table 3.10 Comparison of John 21:17-22 in two versions .......................... 134 Table 3.11 Comparison of Matthew 13:1-8 in two versions ........................ 137 Table 3.12 Comparison of Romans 1:1-7 in two versions ........................... 140 Table 3.13 Comparison of Romans 13:1-7 in two versions ......................... 143 Table 4.1 The BFBS’s support for the Serampore China Mission and Robert Morrison over the years ................................................. 164 Table 4.2 A comparison of place and people names translated in four Chinese versions ........................................................................ 187 Table 4.3 Marshman’s analysis of Morrison’s reliance on the Basset Manuscript  .............................................................................. 195 Table A.1 A comparison of place and people names translated in six Chinese versions ........................................................................ 281  vii LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 2.1  Johannes Lassar’s Matthew (1807) .................................................. 81 Fig. 2.2  Johannes Lassar’s Matthew (1807) .................................................. 82 Fig. 2.3  Marshman and Lassar’s Mark (1811) .............................................. 83 Fig. 2.4  Marshman and Lassar’s John (1813) ............................................... 84 Fig. 3.1 Robert Morrison’s “Chinese” Lord’s Prayer (1802) ...................... 146 Fig. 3.2 Jean Basset’s John (Biblioteca Casanantense, ~1700)   ................. 147 Fig. 3.3 Jean Basset’s Harmony of Gospels (British Library, ~1700) ........ 148 Fig. 3.4 Jean Basset’s Harmony of Gospels (HKU, ~1700) ........................ 149 Fig. 3.5  Robert Morrison’s John (1813) ...................................................... 150 Fig. 4.1 Robert Morrison’s Letter to LMS on 21 Jun 1809 ......................... 198 Fig. 4.2 Joshua Marshman’s Letter to LMS on 13 Dec 1816 ...................... 199 Fig. 4.3  Marshman and Lassar’s Genesis (1822) ........................................ 200 Fig. 4.4 Robert Morrison’s Genesis (1823) ................................................. 201          viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  First, I would like to thank my two supervisors – the late Dr. Dietmar Neufeld, and Dr Rob Cousland. When I thought it was impossible for our department to approve a project about Chinese translations of the Christian Bible, Dr. Neufeld took up the challenge and allowed me to work on the intriguing topic, and did his best to give me help. Though his untimely death brought much sadness and uncertainities during the later stage of this project, I was very fortunate to have Dr. Rob Cousland stepping in and serving as my new supervisor. I would not have completed my study, if not for Dr. Cousland’s careful reading and commenting on every edition of my dissertation. The final product would not have been nearly as good without Dr. Cousland’s diligence and tremendous insights.  I am also very grateful for those in my department, Dr. Rumee Ahmed, Dr. Daphna Arbel, Dr. Gregg Gardner, and Dr. Sara Milstein, for helping me survive through the general comprehensive exam and prospectus stages. Special thanks to graduate director Dr. Franco De Angelis, for guiding me through the whole process of the final oral defence. Also deserving a special mention are the team of examiners who reviewed my dissertation with great care and gave me very helpful feedback – Dr. Don Baker, Dr. Ross King, Dr. Glen Peterson, and Dr. Chloë Starr.  I would not have been able to return to school to do a PhD, if not for the gracious help and longtime support of Dr. Harry Maier and Dr. Sven Soderlund. I in particular owe a big thank you to my colleague Dr. Justin Glessner. I have been very fortunate to have him as the best role model one can learn from. Words cannot express how much I appreciate the sacrifices my family has made, starting from the first day I decided to go back for my next and last degree. I in particular am indebted to my wonderful wife, Helen, who has shown unfailing faith, patience, strength, and love during my many ups and downs over this extended period of study. She might have reservation about me going back to school, but held my hand and walked with me to the finish line nonetheless.  Lastly, I thank the Almighty for His guidance and His keeping. Quoting from Philippians 1:6b: ὁ ἐναρξάµενος ἐν ὑµῖν ἔργον ἀγαθὸν ἐπιτελέσει ἄχρι ἡµέρας Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ·  (“The (One) who started this great work in you would keep at it and bring it to a flourishing finish on the very day Christ Jesus appears. – The Message)  ix   DEDICATION   To my wife, Helen, and my children, Ethan and Cadence, who have endured long hours of my absence and working behind the computer, and supported me throughout this long journey.    To the late Professor Dietmar Neufeld, a remarkable scholar, a kind mentor, and a true friend.          1 1. INTRODUCTION    To few men falls the undivided honour of being the first in any great undertaking. This truth finds ample illustration in the realms of science, of discovery, of religion, and of politics. And to two men falls the distinction of having produced the earliest translations of the Bible into Chinese. One labored in India and the other in Canton.1    The history of the first Protestant translations of the Bible into Chinese has always been a tale of courage and perseverance, of tremendous successes and achievements under the toughest of conditions and the pressure of time. There is the well-told story of Robert Morrison, Scottish minister and the first Protestant missionary to ever set foot on the soil of China, arriving in Canton by himself in 1807.2 Within just seven years he had translated the entire New Testament into Chinese, with only the help of just a few native teachers, a handful of books, and a copy of a Chinese translation of the New Testament 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1  Marshall Broomhall, The Bible in China (London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1934) 50. 2  A number of biographical accounts are available, many of them published just shortly after Morrison’s death. These include: Eliza A. Morrison, Memoirs of the Life and Labours of Robert Morrison, compiled by His Widow; with Critical Notices of his Chinese Works by Samuel Kidd and an Appendix containing Original Documents, 2 volumes (London: Longman, 1839); WM. A. Alcott, The Life of Robert Morrison – The First Protestant Missionary to China (New York: Carlton & Phillips, 1856); Alexander Wylie, Memorials of Protestant Missionaries to the Chinese (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1867); William Townsend, Robert Morrison: The Pioneer of Chinese Missions (New York: F. H. Revell, 1888); Marshall Broomhall, Robert Morrison: A Master-Builder (London: Livingstone Press, 1924). More contemporary works include: Lindsay Ride, Robert Morrison, The Scholar and the Man (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 1957); Christopher Hancock, Robert Morrison and the birth of Chinese Protestantism (London: T&T Clark, 2008); Christopher Daily, Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013).   2 obtained from the British Museum.3 Morrison’s work in China was so well known and held in such high esteem, that from 1812 to 1824, the British Foreign and Bible Society provided a generous grant of £7,000 to support the translation, printing, and distribution of his translations.4 Morrison received great personal honors too, was awarded a Doctor of Divinity by the University of Glasgow in 1817, and later received by King George IV and made a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1824.5 During this period of time Morrison went on to publish a Chinese grammar book in English, a number of other publications, as well as a massive multi-volume Chinese-to-English dictionary – the first of its kind ever completed.6 It is because of his pioneer status and achievements in translation and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  3  Morrison’s ability to work and succeed with relatively little help is often cited in reference to his strength and achievement. See Toshikazu S. Foley, Biblical Translation in Chinese and Greek – Verbal Aspect in Theory and Practice (Leiden: Brill, 2009) 18. 4  Figure obtained by George Kam Wah Mak, “‘Laissez-faire’ or Active Intervention? The Nature of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Patronage of the Translation of the Chinese Union Versions”, Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 20, 2 (2010) 169-170 n.12. It is based on the calculation done by Su Ching 蘇精, using the figures listed in the British Foreign and Bible Society (BFBS) annual reports, in Zhongguo Kaimen! Ma Lixun Ji Xianguan Renwu Yenjiu 《中國,開門!馬禮遜及相關人物研究》(Hong Kong: Christian Study Centre on Chinese Religion and Culture, 2005) 280. Jost Oliver Zetzsche suggests that the BFBS contributions finally amounted to £7,439, though he did not explain how the amount was reached. Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China: The History of the Union Version or the Culmination of Protestant Missionary Bible Translation in China (Nettetal: Steyler Verlag, 1999), 44 n.103. 5  Robert Morrison departed China on 6 Dec 1823 and arrived in Britain on 20 March 1824, hence some records call it the 1823 trip and some the 1824. See Christopher Hancock, “Robert Morrison: Missionary Mediator, Surprising Saint” in G. Wright Doyle (ed.), Builders of the Chinese Church: Pioneer Protestant Missionaries and Chinese Leaders (Eugene: Pickwick Publications, 2015) 31; Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 44. 6	  	   Morrison’s dictionary is made up of 3 parts – the first, titled Zidian 《字典》 (A Dictionary of the Chinese Language – Part I), is arranged by the 214 Chinese radicals, published in 1815; part II is titled Wuche Yunfu 《五車韵府》 (A Dictionary of the Chinese Language – Part II) and has two volumes, with the first volume being a dictionary arranged in the order of the number of syllables, and volume 2 being a synopsis of different forms of Chinese characters, published in 1822; part III only has the English title A Dictionary of the Chinese Language – Part III, and is a dictionary arranged by the English alphabet, starting with “Abandon” and ending with “Zodiac”, published in 1823. The entire project took 15 years of Morrison’s time in China. See Xian Wu and Liren Zheng, “Robert Morrison and the First Chinese-English Dictionary”, Journal of East Asian Libraries, no.147 (2009) 6.	   3 language studies that Morrison has been widely deemed the “Father of the Protestant Mission in China”,7 even though he was only responsible for a small number of native converts during his years of service in China.8 When he died, one editorial lamented: “Morrison, the translator of the Scriptures into Chinese – Morrison, the compiler of the Chinese Dictionary, rendering the acquisition of that difficult language comparatively easy – Morrison, the holy and the wise, is dead!” 9   During the period when Morrison was working on his biblical translations, a group of Baptist missionaries were also working on their own version of the Chinese Scriptures in the Dutch port of Serampore, Bengal. This team of Baptist translators, often referred to as the Serampore “gentlemen”, 10 were headed by Joshua Marshman and Johannes Lassar, and managed to translate and print the first complete Chinese Bible one 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  7  The phrase “father of the Chinese mission” was used by author John Morrison (not Robert Morrison’s son) in John Morrison, The fathers and founders of the London Missionary Society: a jubilee memorial including a sketch of the origin and progress of the institution (London: Fisher, Son & Co., 1844) xxxi, however it is unlikely that he had coined the phrase. When the editors of the Christian Examiner sent a letter of condolences to John Robert Morrison (Robert Morrison’s son) ten years earlier on 17 August 1834 after his father’s death, they started the letter by saying “My dear Sir – How shall I tell you that our beloved father – that the father of the Chinese Mission – Dr. Morrison, is no more!” The Christian Examiner and Church of Ireland Magazine for 1835 conducted by Members of the Established Church, New Series vol. IV (Dublin: William Curry, Jun. and Company, 1835) 215. 8  “Few missionaries have encountered the difficulties with which he had to contend, or have needed the self-denial by which he overcame all obstacles. He saw little direct result in the conversion of the Chinese, but he prepared the path for others.” James Sibree, Register of LMS Missionaries, 1763-1923, (London: LMS, 1923) entry 106; Richard Cook, “Overcoming Missions Guilt: Robert Morrison, Liang Fa, and the Opium Wars”, Richard Cook and David Pao (eds.) After Imperialism: Christian Identity in China and the Global Evangelical Movement (Cambridge: The Lutterworth Press, 2012) 39. 9  The Christian Examiner and Church of Ireland Magazine for 1835, 214. 10  The origin of this mode of address is unclear, yet it is likely that by the time the British and Foreign Bible Society was established in 1804, it was already customary to address the Baptist missionaries in Serampore the “gentlemen in India”, so much so that the word “gentlemen” came up three times in a single paragraph found in one of the earliest records of the Society, when it discusses the need to “open a correspondence with gentlemen in India, informing them of the establishment of the British and Foreign Bible Society”, John Owen, The History of the Origin and First Ten Years of the British and Foreign Society. (London: Tilling and Hughes, 1816) 98-99.  4 year ahead of Morrison and his coworker William Milne, in 1822. We are told that the two groups labored devotedly but mostly independently, and by a great coincidence they managed to finish their Chinese Bibles almost at the same time.11 This Baptist version of the Chinese translation, often referred to as the “Marshman/Lassar Bible” or simply the “Marshman Bible”, would however receive a lot less attention in the following years. In many accounts regarding the first Protestant Chinese Bible, the Marshman/Lassar version usually receives no more than a passing mention, even though the tone is usually a polite one.12 The situation is consistent with the modern Chinese sources, which tend to give very limited coverage to and downplay the significance of the Marshman/Lassar version, especially when comparing it to Morrison’s.13 For example, Tang Qing writes in his history of the Chinese Christian churches that:14 As for the Chinese bible translated by Indian missionary Joshua Marshman, although it was published in India in 1822 and was presented to the British and Foreign Bible Society a year ahead of Morrison’s, his manuscripts were only completed in 1822, while 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  11  The Quarterly Review, vol. 180 (London: John Murray, 1895) 309. 12  For example in one issue of The Quarterly Review the works and contributions of Robert Morrison were greatly esteemed in two full pages, but the mention of Marshman and Lassar was limited to just one short sentence. The Quarterly Review, vol. 180, 309-10. 13  The whole episode of the Serampore Chinese mission was ignored in works such as Lin Chi-Ping 林治平 (ed.), Jidujiao Ruhua Baiqishinian Jinianji 《基督教入華百七十年紀念集》 (A Memorial Volume celebrating the 170th anniversary of Christianity entering China) (Taiwan: Cosmic Care, 1984), 6-11. An exception is Raymond Chiu Wai Boon, Yijing Suyuan – Xiandai Wuda Zhongwen Shengjing Fanyi Shi 《譯經溯源﹣現代五大中文聖經翻譯史》 (Tracing Bible Translation: A History of the Translation of Five Modern Chinese Versions of the Bible) (Hong Kong: China Graduate School of Theology, 1993) 17-18, even though the section on Marshman/Lassar is still very brief. It has been considerably expanded in another volume by the same author: Jiazong Chongxun – Yijing Xianfeng Liezhuan 《佳蹤重尋:譯經先鋒列傳》  (A  Beautiful Legacy: The Pioneers of Chinese Bible Translation) (Singapore: Singapore Bible College, 2007) 40-57. 14  Christopher Tang 湯清, Zhongguo Jiaohui Bailian Shi 《中國教會百年史》 (A hundred-year history of the Chinese Church) (Hong Kong, 1990) 94.  5 Morrison’s were ready as early as 1819. Also, Morrison’s translation was more superior.    To Tang, both the time of completion and the quality of the translation are to justify why Morrison’s version should receive better recognition. However, neither of the references Tang provides really support his claim that the Marshman/Lassar version was a far inferior copy.15  On the other hand, if we truly consider the first team to complete the translation of the entire Chinese Bible, the honor must go to the Serampore Baptists, although Morrison was the first to complete the translation of the New Testament portion. If we think about the very first Protestant attempt of translating one biblical book, Morrison was in fact a few years behind his Baptist counterpart too – it was Johannes Lassar, who had translated the Gospel of Matthew in 1807 in Serampore. The team of Marshman and Lassar ended up finishing 3 books before Morrison completed just his first book, the Gospel of Luke, in 1811.16 When it comes to the Protestant writings on the Chinese language and grammar, Morrison is very well-known and highly regarded for his massive A Grammar of the Chinese Language, but again it was Joshua Marshman who completed a grammar first, publishing his Clavis Sinica in 1814, a year before Morrison 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  15  Two primary sources that Tang uses to support his conclusion come from Marshall Broomhall and Alexander Wylie. Wylie’s comments were much more flattering than critical, saying “By (Lassar’s and Marshman’s) joint labours, and competent native Chinese assistance, the whole Bible was brought to a conclusion in 1820, and printed at Serampore, by 1822. This, which was the first known entire printed version of the Scriptures in Chinese, was a remarkable monument of perseverance and untiring zeal, and must rank as not the least inconspicuous among the multifarious labours of the devoted and self-denying Marshman; sixteen years having been spent in its production. The version as might be expected is rude, and to a degree unidiomatic, as most first versions in the oriental languages necessarily are.” Alexander Wylie, “The Bible in China (1868)”, in Chinese Researches (Shanghai, 1897), 97-98. 16  Morrison in fact published a translation of the Acts of the Apostles in 1810, but it was just a transcribed copy of the Acts he had obtained from the British Museum – a work done by Jesuit priest Jean Basset more than a century before. See Chapter 3 for details.  6 published the first part of his dictionary. This work of Marshman’s was actually the one that William Milne, future mission and translation partner of Morrison, used for improving his Chinese, when he was en route to China in 1812.17 So Marshman’s Clavis Sinica has to be considered a useful work for foreign learners of Chinese in the early years of the Protestant China Mission. As a whole, the time of completion should add merits to the works of Marshman and Lassar when compared to Morrison’s, not diminish it.  Another commonly cited reason for the overshadowing of the achievements of the Serampore team has been the high quality of Morrison’s translations, especially when compared to that of Marshman and Lassar.18 Far removed in the late 19th century, a reviewer complained that the Marshman/Lassar version suffered from “the defect of excessive literalness, a restricted range of diction, limited knowledge of the grammatical principle of Chinese, and the poverty of the Chinese tongue of that time to represent Christian ideas”, while the Morrison/Milne version was superior because of the “larger command of the services of Native scholars.” 19 However, there were some who held very different views, mainly from the Baptist side,20 and others who found Morrison’s copy 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  17  Robert Philip, The Life and Opinions of the Rev. William Milne, D.D. Missionary to China. (Philadelphia: H. Hooker, 1840) 94. 18  “After the publication of the two translations, most believe that Morrison’s translation is more fluent, and Marshman’s suffers from “a lack of vocabulary and a tendency to be too literary, only going for textual accuracy.” Raymond Chiu Wai Boon, Yijing Suyuan – Xiandai Wuda Zhongwen Shengjing Fanyi Shi (Tracing Bible Translation: A History of the Translation of Five Modern Chinese Versions of the Bible), 18, quoting from Xu Mu Shi, “A Brief History of the Translation of the Chinese Bible”, Jingfeng 《景風》, 69 (1982), 36n4. The impression seems to echo that of John Wherry (see later). 19  The Church Missionary Review, Volume 43, 1892, 19. 20  Such as George Winfred Hervey: “Dr. Marshman was known and respected as a Chinese scholar before Dr. Morrison had acquired any reputation in that regard. As early as 1816, Dr. Owen, the Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society, reminded the latter of the importance of employing  7 not much more superior after all.21 Not all critics of Morrison’s work came from the Baptist circle either, as W. A. P. Martin, Presbyterian missionary and translator, would quite harshly describe the Morrison translation as “rude in style and untrue to the sacred text, the work of a worthy man, but little acquainted with the original tongues.”22 Perhaps the strongest evidence that the Morrison version was still very much a work in progress comes from Morrison’s own actions: even before the Morrison/Milne Bible was ready for the press, he was already contemplating a revision of what he had done.23 And within a mere decade after the publication of this Bible, Morrison himself twice decided to revise the works in 1827 and 1832, and he would remain the strongest advocate for a new and more substantially revised version throughout the 1830s.24 The situation was not lost on his sectarian critics either. George Winfred Hervey, a Baptist author who wrote a few decades after the death of Morrison, would portray a much more cynical picture of Morrison’s “achievement” in a speedy completion of the Chinese Bible: 25 It is curious to observe how the Christian public have been deceived by the ignorance in which they have been kept concerning the difference 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  all the light he could get from the labors of his brother translator at Serampore.” The Story of Baptist Missions in Foreign Lands – From the Time of Carey to the Present Date (St. Louis: Chancy R. Barns, 1884) 501). Hervey’s understanding of Owen’s statement is questionable though, because Morrison had already completed the translation and printing of the entire New Testament by that time, so Owen was likely being polite and encouraging rather than judging Morrison’s ability. 21  John Wherry mentions that the Marshman’s version suffered from being “crude” in style, with too much “literalism” and having a “narrowness of range” in vocabulary. But he also marvels at how much “good current Chinese” it has, and most importantly remarks that in comparison with Marshman’s, Morrison’s “does not reveal a great superiority.” “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 Mission Press, 1890) 48, 50. 22  Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 44. 23  Morrison’s letter to LMS on 11 Oct 1821 (LMS, South China, Incoming Correspondence, Box 2). 24  Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 44. 25  George Winfred Hervey, The Story of Baptist Missions in Foreign Lands, 501.  8 between making a hurried end of a manuscript of the Bible, which afterwards required years of toil in revision before it was tolerably fit for the press (although this never was in any sense fit), and the printing of such manuscript.   Further criticism of Morrison’s Bible was its translation approach, which according to modern translation theories, would be considered a highly literal and “foreignized” attempt.26  The translation was so full of foreign terms unknown to the Chinese, that many native speakers found the reading very awkward. A Baptist report allegedly quoted a number of higher-profile native users of the Bible, complaining that the work was “unintelligible to a Chinese”, even to the point of being “distasteful to the Chinese”.27 Equally telling is the statement of John Wherry, when he gave his overall assessment of the various early versions of the Chinese Bible at the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China in 1890. Even though he had his criticisms for the Marshman/Lassar Bible, he still marveled “how much of the actual contents of the book is good current Chinese, and what a large proportion of it appears, ipsissimis verbis, in subsequent translations”. More importantly for this study is that when he compared 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  26  Lawrence Venuti, The Translator’s Invisibility: A history of translation, 2nd Ed. (London: Routledge, 2008), 14-16. 27  “Leang Afah (Liang A-fa), a Chinese evangelist, says, it is ‘far from being idiomatic—the translator has sometimes used too many characters, and the sense is obscure from its inverted and unusual phrases.' This Chinese scholar attempted to correct some of these faults. Lew Tse Chuen, a Chinese literary graduate and Christian convert, says, ‘it has a number of redundancies and tautologies which render the meaning obscure—this unfinished style renders it distasteful to the Chinese.' This scholar also tried to correct these faults, but was unsuccessful. He thinks the best way would be to make a paraphrase in an easy style, which, when understood, would facilitate the comprehension of the version itself. Choo Tih Lang, a Chinese transcriber, says, 'It is exceedingly verbose, containing much foreign phraseology, unintelligible to a Chinese.’” Edward Bean Underhill, The Baptist Record and Biblical Repository, vol. 2 (London: Aylott and Jones, 1845) 327.  9 Morrison’s to Marshman’s, he found that it “does not reveal a great superiority, though it was more generally adopted and more widely circulated.”28  If Morrison did not seem to have a significant edge over the Serampore team when it came to being the very first, or being much better in terms of the quality of his translation, how did he come to be so revered and respected, and regularly identified as the undisputed father of the China Mission? If it is true that the Serampore gentlemen were as active and productive as Morrison in the earliest stage of Protestant translation of the Bible into Chinese, what factors eventually led to Morrison’s works being a lot more widely accepted and recognized, while the efforts of Marshman and Lassar are barely mentioned and were readily ignored by the latter generations?29 As the reputation of Morrison and his bible translation grew in the decades following its publication, the hard work of Marshman and Lassar was quickly forgotten, so that by 1876, just 50 years after its publication, Alexander Wylie was already calling a copy of it “a rarity”.30 About a decade later at the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China, John Wherry would recall the difficulty of securing just one copy of the Marshman Bible, and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  28  John Wherry, “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, 48-50. 29  Lassar, especially, is almost forgotten nowadays. Researchers of the work of these earliest Protestant translators are mindful of a translation of Matthew completed in 1807, but no research has been done in examining the content of this first translated book of the Bible by a Protestant translator, and Lassar certainly hasn’t been regarded as a founder or pioneer of any sort, unlike the greatly esteemed Dr. Robert Morrison. As far as this author is aware, this research is the first-ever English work that tries to examine the text and translation merits of Lassar’s 1807 Matthew, which has languished in a library in England for more than 200 years. 30  The Seventy-Second Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society (London: Bible Society House, 1876) 193.  10 he was only able to find one through a personal friend, who happened to be examining a personal collection of Elijah Coleman Bridgman.31  The problem lies in our inadequate understanding of the role of the Protestant Chinese translators in the early 19th century, and in relying too much on the textual and linguistic issues in focus - what is often missing in the narrative of the first Chinese Bibles is an appreciation of the much bigger picture of religious and social networks within which these missionaries operated. Early Protestant translators like Morrison and Marshman were never just translators and language workers - they were also missionaries who belonged to different mission societies (in their case the London Mission Society and the Baptist Mission Society respectively); members of different Protestant denominations (Morrison a Presbyterian and Marshman a Baptist); subjects under different jurisdictions (Morrison a foreign worker residing in Canton, and Marshman a member of the Serampore Mission under the jurisdictional protection of first the Dutch government and then the British Indian government); recipients of grants and assistance from various patrons of Bible translations, such as the British Foreign and Bible Society and the American Bible Society; and Morrison was also an employee of the East India Company. As a part of this complicated network of people and organizations, the early Protestant translators would rely on far more than just language skills to complete their translations. Also important were their abilities to navigate through this complex array of 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  31  “It is now antiquated, and has long since ceased to be printed. Copies are found in museums, collections of old Bibles, and in the older mission libraries of China; but few of the present generation of missionaries have had the opportunity of seeing, much less of critically examining, a copy.” John Wherry, Records of the General Conference of the Protestant Missionaries of China held at Shanghai, May 7-20, 1890, 48. Elijah Bridgman was, of course, a learned Chinese translator himself, and a pioneering American missionary in China, see Eliza J. Gillet Bridgman, The Life and Labors of Elijah Coleman Bridgman – The Pioneer of American Missions in China (New York: Anson D. F. Randolph, 1864) 132-133.   11 social structures, as well as being effective in their other social roles. As a result, social factors such as patronage and support, society and individual rivalries, government policies, reputation and fame, all played a role in determining how a translator must operate in order to become effective, and in affecting the reception and evaluation of his/her works and achievements.  The current work will seek to examine three areas that have not received adequate treatment by researchers: 1) To better understand the complicated bible translation process and stages of Robert Morrison from a historical and socio-cultural critical perspective, and examine critically the translation decisions he made as a response to the social and religious contexts he found himself engaged in. It is hoped that the “hagiographical”32 elements of the story of Robert Morrison can largely be avoided, and a clearer picture of the first Protestant missionary in China can emerge, providing us with a more intimate portrayal of Morrison as a relentless learner, writer, promoter, and competitor, as he moved through his multiple roles as a translator, a missionary, a printer, as well as an educator.  2) The Chinese Bible translation tradition of the Serampore Baptists has simply not received any in-depth treatment. Misinformation about their works continues to get circulated,33 and even a number of accounts have the Baptists’ 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  32  Christopher Daily believes that the two-volume memoirs of Robert Morrison produced by his widow Eliza, reads like a hagiography that seeks to glorify his labours and missions and to protect his reputation. Though he agrees that Eliza never set out to produce an objective biographical account, her Memoirs “served as the foundation for a series of hagiographical studies … (that) also idolized Morrison’s life and mission. Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2013) 1. 33  For instance, there has been a story that Lassar had completed both Genesis and Matthew by 1804, but no evidence has ever been found to support the claim (Zhao Xiao Yang 趙曉陽, “Erma Shengjing Yiben Yu Bairisheng Shengjing Yiben Guanxi Kaobian” 二馬聖經譯本與白日升聖經譯本關係考辨 (An investigation of the relationship between Jean Basset’s translation and the translations of Robert Morrison and Joshua Marshman), Jindaishi Yanjiu 《近代史研究》 4 (2009) 41). This study argues  12 translations mentioned, yet only to serve as an introduction or a reference to the mention of Morrison’s works.34 This study finds the Serampore tradition valuable in providing a window into one of the earliest Protestant approaches to Chinese Bible translation, one that was apparently free from the influence of the earlier Catholic versions.35 A better understanding of the translation activities in Serampore is essential for a critical evaluation of the bigger contextual picture that was affecting the early Protestant translators. 3) The analysis of why Robert Morrison’s Bible enjoyed far greater recognition and circulation than the Marshman/Lassar version has been insufficient, often too presumptuous. By exploring the notions of patronage, rivalry and denominational politics, this study argues that the vastly different historical trajectories of the two earliest Chinese Bibles were a result of the complexities associated with the various expectations bestowed upon the early Protestant translators, among which linguistic merits were just a small part.    	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  that Lassar’s Matthew of 1807 was the first ever published Chinese translation of a biblical book by a Protestant. 34  One can argue that even with Morrison, there are many aspects of him that have not been thoroughly studied  - “Morrison is not the only important missionary whose work remains unexploited by contemporary sinologists. William Milne (1785-1822), Morrison’s first LMS colleague in East Asia, also fares poorly in contemporary sinological discourse.” Christopher Daily, Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China, 1.  35  Given that Lassar grew up in Macao (see Chapter 2), it is reasonable to suspect that his translation might be influenced to some extent by the Catholic tradition, after all some of the Chinese religious terms used by the Catholics (e.g. “Jesus”, “Peter”, “John”) had been quite consistent for two centuries, since the time of Matteo Ricci and Emmanuel Diaz. This author has compared 40 common terms from the New Testament that had appeared in the early Catholic writings, and found that although most of them underwent little change since the earliest days of the Jesuit mission in China, only one of them were used by Lassar in his translation (the only exception was “God”, which Lassar also used Tianzhu 天主). It shows that either Lassar was not very familiar with the Catholic terminology, or tried not to use it in his translation (forthcoming article by this author: “The Roman Connection – Catholic Influence on the Chinese Bible”).  13 1.1  TRANSLATION TRADITIONS IN CHINA  In Translating Others, Theo Hermans summarizes how the Western study of translation is limited by its particular concepts of language and culture, and an association with canonical texts, giving rise to its “preoccupation with identity and preservation, its pervasive metaphors of transport and transference and its assumption of discrete, bounded entities, whether linguistic, social, political, historical or disciplinary”. 36 Concerned that such a narrow focus is inadequate for dealing with the complexities and inequities of our postmodern, postcolonial, and globalizing world, scholars have worked to expand translation studies to the global scale, using non-Western models to develop theories and methodologies. More and more, researchers are making conscious efforts to embrace the translation traditions of non-Western cultures.37  Two of these traditions that have drawn considerable scholarly attention in the recent years are those of the Chinese and of the Arab world. In order to better understand the translation history in China, most scholars follow what Eva Hung and David Pollard identify as the four major “waves” of translation activities in China38 – 1) The translation of Buddhist sutras from Sanskrit to Chinese, which can be further divided into three 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  36  Theo Hermans, “Introduction” in Theo Hermans (ed.) Translating Others, vol. 1 (Manchester: St. Jerome Publishing, 2006), 14. 37 Jeremy Munday recounts the fact that there had been a “very strong tendency” for scholars of translation studies to focus on the western European writings in the past, while many similar studies on non-western cultures are simply not unavailable in English. Yet, the situation has begun to change since the outset of the 21st century, with an “ever-growing list of publications addressing the wider geographical framework”, Introducing Translation Studies – Theories and Applications, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012) 29. 38   Hung and Pollard, “Chinese Tradition”, in Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies (London: Routledge, 1998), 366-373. Li Xia has incorrectly attributed this pattern of division to translator critic Xu Jun’s 1999 article, “Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China”, in Luo Xuanmin and He Yuanjian (eds.), Translating China (Bristol: Multilingual Matters, 2009).   14 phases, spreading over a period of almost ten centuries (from 148 – 1100 CE); 2) The translation of Western works, mostly scientific and technological in topic, by the Jesuits into Chinese from around mid-16th century to late-17th century; 3) The translation of Western and Japanese works by Chinese intellectuals and reformists like Lin Shu, Yan Fu, and Lu Xun at the end of the 19th century; 4) The politically oriented translation of Soviet literature into Chinese, and later the translation of Chinese works (such as Mao’s) into other languages during the mid-20th century.39  A major problem of this understanding of the Chinese translation history is a tendency to ignore the vigorous translation activities and ambitious approaches carried out by the early Protestant, starting with Robert Morrison and the Serampore Baptists translators in around 1810-11, to the early 20th century. John K Fairbank has remarked that, “In China’s nineteenth-century relations with the West, Protestant missionaries are still the least studied but most significant actors in the scene.”40 Although Hung and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  39  An example of the influence of Hung’s and Pollard’s categorization can be seen in a recent article by Luo Xuanmin and Lei Hong, who concur that “it is generally accepted that there were four major, successive stages of translation activity in China”, even though Luo does not specially quote Hung and Pollard and defines the final phase slightly differently, “Translation Theory and Practice in China”, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, 12:1 (2010) 20-23. In a similar but more subtle way, when Leo Chan argues that traditionally “Chinese translation theorists are prone to vague, impressionistic assertions concerning translations”, he traces the same first three stages of historical Chinese translation development (“That is the case with the early Buddhist translator-theorists working in the second to the tenth centuries, with the seventeenth and eighteenth-century Christian converts who translated religious and scientific writings from the West, and even with the early twentieth-century theorist Yan Fu (1854-1921)”), and totally skips the period of the Protestant missionary translation activities. (“The traditional approach: Impressionistic theories”, in Leo Tak-Hung Chan, “The traditional approach: Impressionistic theories” in Twentieth-Century Chinese Translation Theory – Modes, Issues, and Debates (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2004), 3). Wang Keifei and Fan Shouyi also adopt an almost identical division method, “Translation in China: A motivating force”, Meta 44(1), 1999, 7-26. 40  John K Fairbank, “Introduction: The Place of Protestant Writings in China’s Cultural History” in Suzanne W. Barnett and John K. Fairbank (eds.), Christianity in China: Early Protestant Missionary Writings (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1985), p.2.  15 Pollard have managed to mention in one paragraph the active engagement of Protestant mission bodies in translating technical and scientific works during the 19th century, they quickly dismiss their importance by commenting that the Chinese linguist Ma Jianzhong found these works mostly “unreadable or unintelligible”.41 Similarly, in Eva Hung’s discussion of various cultural “borderlands” throughout the history of translation in China, despite her identification of the 19th-century Shanghai as one of the three most important borderlands for translators and their activities, she readily limits her discussion of the Western missionaries – by trying to focus on the work and contribution of their Chinese counterparts. Though Hung is not incorrect in attributing Shanghai’s success to “the simultaneous existence of two cultural and administrative systems (that) was complemented by the tradition of Chinese as well as Western learning”, and that her work does respond to the problematic trend of Western missionaries in China keeping silent or quiet about the help and contribution of their Chinese helpers,42 her emphasis means that the important role played by the Protestant missionary translators is readily sidelined.43  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  41  Hung and Pollard, “Chinese Tradition”, in Mona Baker (ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 371. 42  For a discussion on these “invisible” Chinese helpers, see Thor Strandenaes, “Anonymous Bible Translators: Native Literati and the Translation of the Bible into Chinese, 1807-1907”, in Stephen Batalden, Kathleen Cann and John Dean (eds.), Sowing the Word – The Cultural Impact of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 1804-2004. (Sheffield: Phoenix Press, 2004) 121-148; also See John T. P. Lai, Negotiating Religious Gaps – The Enterprise of Translation Christian Tracts by Protestant Missionaries in Nineteenth-Century China (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta Serica, 2012) 91-116.  43  A good example can be seen when Hung first mentions Walter Henry Medhurst; her focus quickly turns to the great number of Chinese assistants being able to work with the Western missionaries, without going into any details about the actual translational activities of these foreign translators: “The first establishment for translation work in Shanghai, the London Mission Society Press, was founded by Walter Henry Medhurst (1796–1857) in 1844. While the conception and the structure of the Press were European, its personnel included a significant number of Chinese assistants who worked with the missionaries. They were the first generation of 19th-century Chinese to come into direct contact with  16 Not only are the missionary translators44 readily ignored by modern researchers, even when they are acknowledged, the focus is usually on their contributions in classical literature, scientific and technological translation, while their efforts in translating religious and literary materials hardly break a ripple in the discussion. For example, even though Wang Kefei and Fan Shouyi modify Hung’s and Pollard’s “four waves” categorization and date the beginning of the 3rd wave earlier to the 1840s, their emphasis is on the signing of the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 and the subsequent transferal of Western scientific knowledge, while ignoring the body of religious translation carried out by the first generation of Protestant missionary translators.45 A slightly more inclusive treatment is provided by Xiong Yuezhi, which includes some information regarding the early translation and publication activities spearheaded by the missionaries, and additional names such as William Milne, Karl Gützlaff, and Walter Medhurst. Unfortunately Xiong’s emphasis is on Chinese familiarity with the West, so his focus is on the spread of western learning at that time, so once again the translation of religious materials is ignored, and matters regarding translation methods and approaches are also 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  various aspects of Western learning, and to participate in their translation into Chinese. Other missionary-operated publishers were run along the same lines.” Eva Hung, “Cultural borderlands in China’s translation history”, in Eva Hung (ed.), Translation and Cultural Change (Amsterdam: John Benjamin, 2005) 43-64. In contrast, the situation is quite different when it comes to the development and modernization of the Korean language and script during late 19th and early 20th centuries, where South Koreans generally recognized and acknowledged the contribution of the Western Protestant missionaries. See Ross King, “Western Protestant Missionaries and the Origins of Korean Language Modernization”, Journal of International and Area Studies 11(3), 2004, 7-8. 44  This study will refer to the Protestant missionary translators as simply “missionary translators” at times, even though the Jesuits were also missionaries in their own right. “Jesuit” or “Jesuits” will always be used when referring to the latter group.  45  Wang Keifei and Fan Shouyi, “Translation in China: A motivating force”, Meta 44(1), 1999, 7.  17 left unaddressed.46 Among the modern authors, only Li Xia extends the third stage of translation development (which he also names “Western Learning”) to cover the entire period 1811-1911, and adds in a few lines discussing Robert Morrison, the London Missionary Society, as well as the translation activities that took place from 1811-1842. Still, the coverage is far from extensive, and the emphasis is also on the transferal of Western knowledge of science and technology, and on Chinese translators like Yan Fu and Lin Shu. In comparison to the Jesuits’ experience in China two centuries earlier, Li finds the impact of the Christian missionaries “negligible”.47 Worth mentioning is the more recent work by John T. P. Lai. By examining the translation of Christian tracts from English to Chinese since the Second Opium War, Lai’s work has contributed a lot in our understanding of strategies used by the Protestant missionaries in indigenizing Christianity in the Chinese cultural contexts.48 The study is a welcoming addition to the topic of the activities and significance of 19th century Protestant missionary translators, yet John Fairbank’s remark noted earlier still stands, as much more works need to be done in order to understand this whole period better, especially when it comes to the first half of the 19th century.  So why should this episode of translation activities in the history of China be so important as to merit much attention? And what is the problem of focusing on just the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  46  “(The missionaries) set up printing presses and published books and journals. By 1842 these titles numbered 138, out of which thirty-two were dedicated to the introduction of world history, geography, politics, economics, etc. They published the two earliest Chinese periodicals, which purveyed a lot of information about Western social systems, customs and practices.” Xiong Yuezhi, “Degrees of Familiarity with the West in Late Qing Society” in David Pollard (ed.) Translation and Creation (Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing, 1998) 27. 47  Li Xia, “Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China” in Luo Xuanmin and He Yuanjian (eds.), Translating China, 21, 27. 48 See John T. P. Lai, Negotiating Religious Gaps – The Enterprise of Translation Christian Tracts by Protestant Missionaries in Nineteenth-Century China, 227-8.  18 second half of the period from 1811-1911, when the opening of trading ports in China truly led to the proliferation of Western materials being translated into Chinese? After all, as Li Xia states, the translation done by the missionaries in the early half of the 19th century was mostly just religious texts and occasionally some Chinese classics.49 What can an in-depth study of the translation works of the early Protestant missionaries offer us, aside from a deeper understanding of the exchange of religious ideas? There are two major reasons why the missionaries and their translation practices are not just religiously important, but offer a brilliant case study for some of our more recent translation theories and discussions: 1) First of all, over a period of roughly 100 years (1810-1919),50 a few generations of missionaries51 had individually or collaboratively translated and published no less than 20 major versions of the Christian Old Testament (Hebrew Bible) and/or the New Testament. These frequent and repeated efforts to come up with a desirable Chinese 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  49  Li Xia, “Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Translation in China” in Luo Xuanmin and He Yuanjian (eds.), Translating China, 27. 50  The period extends from Joshua Marshman (with the help of Lassar) completing his first two New Testament books (Matthew and Mark) in 1810, to the completion of the Wenli edition of the Union Version in 1919. Marshman’s first translations would undergo tremendous editing later, but still predated Morrison’s first completed translation, the Acts of the Apostles, by a year. On the other hand, although scanty Bible translation activities did continue after the completion of the Union Version, the frequency and urgency were dwarfed in comparison to the time before the conclusion of the 30-year long Union Version projects - “After the publication of the Union Version, Chinese Bible translation activities moved from busy to quiet. From 1919 to 1968, no new versions of the entire New and Old Testaments had been published.” Chong, Yau-yuk 莊柔玉, Jidujiao Shengjing Zhongwen Yiben Quanwei Xianxiang Yanjiu《基督教聖經中文譯本權威現象研究》(A Study of the Phenomenon of Authoritativeness in the Chinese Translations of the Protestant Bible) (Hong Kong:  International Bible Society, 2000) 15. 51  Roughly speaking, we can have Robert Morrison, Joshua Marshman, William Milne and Joannes Lassar for the 1st generation; Walter Henry Medhurst, Karl Friedrich Gützlaff, Elijah Coleman Bridgeman, Josiah Goddard for the 2nd; for the 3rd generation we have William Chalmers Burns, Samuel Schereschewsky, Griffith John and Ernst Faber; and finally for the 4th generation: Calvin Mateer, John Wherry, John Chalmers, G.E. Moule and Chauncey Goodrich. Jost Oliver Zetzsche also refers to the same first two generations of Protestant missionaries, but prefers grouping the latter two together, because later Bible translations were mostly collaborative efforts carried out by a committee. See Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 5-11.  19 translation of the Christian Bible were exceptional and highly motivated, especially when we consider that even though Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits had arrived in China by the end of 16th century and many were highly capable linguists and translators, only two translations of the Bible were attempted by Jean Basset (just after 1770) and Louis de Poirot (in around 1880), both incomplete. A full Chinese translation of the Catholic Bible would not be available until 1968.52 In contrast, the tremendous energy and effort the Protestant missionary translators put into the Bible translation projects were still very substantial. The century-long project of repeated attempts to translate the same collection of books witnessed the use of a number of different translation approaches, including domesticated, foreignized, vernacular, and dialectical, providing us with an excellent case study for examining how translation practices were constantly affected and driven by different theological, ecclesiastical, political, social and cultural factors. This period of early Bible translation attempts by the Christian missionaries provides us with an excellent case study of the social and cultural impact of bible translations in China.   2) Secondly, the missionaries operated at a time when China was finally interacting with the West, whether willingly or unwilling, and not only in terms of technology and religious thought, but also in foreign thinking and literature. Throughout its long history China had been humbled by foreign invaders a number of times, with “barbarians” conquering parts (e.g. during the Wu Hu Period, the period of the five Hu tribes) or even the whole of the “Middle Kingdom” (e.g. during the Yuan and Qing 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  52  In 1968, the first complete Catholoic Translation of the Chinese Bible was published in Hong Kong. See Arnulf Camps, “Father Gabrielle M. Allegra, O.F.M. (1907-1976) and the Studium Biblicum Franciscanum and the First Complete Chinese Catholic Translation of the Bible” in Irene Eber, Sze-Kar Wan, and Knut Wale (eds.), Bible in Modern China (Sankt Augustin: Institut Monumenta, 1999) 55-76.  20 dynasties). But despite the military setbacks, the Chinese had never felt culturally inferior to these foreign nomadic tribes; on the contrary, the Hu and Manchu invaders would often find themselves fascinated by the cultural sophistication of their Han subjects, and most of them eventually ended up becoming Sinicized.53 One such climax came when Emperor Wen Di of Northern Wei started banning the wearing of his own Xianbei traditional clothes and the use of the northern non-Han languages in court, even changing his own royal family surname from Toba to Yuan! The era of translation and transmission of Buddhist literature (associated with the first wave mentioned earlier) coincided with this Wu Hu Period,54 and this type of Sinophilic attitude had a big impact on the translation approaches and theories of the time. For example Daoan (314-385 C.E.), one of the most important early Chinese translation theorists who was working at the court of one of the Hu kingdoms (Qianqin), famously articulated the 5 shiben (loss of the original) and 3 buyi (difficulties) in translating Buddhist texts.55 A closer examination 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  53  Eva Hung, “Cultural borderlands in China’s translation history”, in Eva Hung (ed.), Translation and Cultural Change, 48. The most remarkable example was with Emperor Wen Di of the Northern Wei Dynasty (386-534 C.E.), who descended from a line of Xianbei (one of the five Hu tribes) nomads, the Toba, inhabiting what is now northern China and Inner Mongolia. After pushing into China and uniting the northern territories, the Xianbei conquerers, were so impressed by the Han culture, that they began to undergo a gradual process of Sinicizing by adopting Han clothing, language, and customs. See Suzanne Valenstein, Cultural Convergence in the Northern Qi Period: A Flamboyant Chinese Ceramic Container (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2007), 75. 54   Hung and Pollard further divide the first “wave” into three stages: 1) From Eastern Han to the Three Kingdoms period (148-265 CE) – mostly word-for-word translation with an emphasis on adhering closely to the source texts. 2) From Jin to the Northern and Southern Dynasties (265-589 CE) - a shift to a more yiyi (paraphrase) method of translation, and the translations were more polished (pioneered by Kumarajiva). 3) Sui to Northern Song (589-1100 CE) – dominated by Yuan Zang, who emphasized paying greater attention to the style of the source texts, reframing and applying literary polish on plain and simple texts, and setting down rules for transliteration. Hung and Pollard, “Chinese Tradition”, Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies, 368. 55  The five losses are: 1) The word order of Sanskrit is different, and when translating into Chinese the word order has to be reversed. Hence the first loss (of word order); 2) The emphasis of the sutras is to express the meaning, so the writing style is plain and direct, while the Chinese style of writing  21 into his translation theories will reveal that three of the five shiben had to do with transforming the original Sanskrit texts into something more elegant and acceptable to their Chinese audience, revealing a case of an asymmetrical power pair – one between the hegemonic Chinese target culture, and the Sanskrit source culture.     Similarly, when the Jesuits began to arrive China from Europe during the Ming Dynasty, what they faced was a nation proud of their culture and learning, and confident in their wealth and might. Originally the Jesuits shaved their heads and appeared as Buddhist monks, but after Matteo Ricci had became head of the China mission in 1597 and began to gain a reputation among Chinese intellectuals as a scholar with great knowledge, he was soon advised (by his learned Chinese friends) that Buddhism was no longer held in high esteem in China, and the lifestyle and ignorance of the monks were widely despised by the Confucian literati.  From then on the Jesuits would appear as Confucian scholars and worked solely among the educated Chinese, adopting what is later called the “Ricci Method”, a “cultural accommodation” approach with regard to this powerful upper class of Chinese. His Treatise on Relationships was written with the specific aim to impress the Confucian scholars with his comprehension and admiration of 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  emphasizes elegance. Hence a translation that emphasizes style and aims to please the Chinese audience will suffer the second source of loss (of writing style); 3) The sutras are very detailed, and not shy about using exclamations and repeating their teachings, even 3 or 4 times. The Chinese texts usually cut them down, causing the third loss (of repetitive wording); 4) The original sutras include commentaries, and removing 1000 or 500 (words?) will make little difference (to the original meaning?) – hence the fourth loss (implying that the commentaries are deleted) (of commentaries); 5) After discussing a subject, the sutras would often discuss it again using another approach. By streamlining the argument, the Chinese texts suffer the fifth loss (of repetitive arguments). The 3 difficulties are: 1) To make the ancient texts appealing to the “modern” readers (a time concern). 2) The profound knowledge of the saintly teachings cannot be easily expressed and passed onto the commoners. (a readership concern). 3) Sutras are an accumulation of saintly knowledge over a thousand years, and cannot easily be translated by the commoner translator (a translation concern). A summary of these concepts is also provided in Jeremy Munday, Introducing Translation Studies – Theories and Applications, 3rd ed. (London: Routledge, 2012) 32.  22 the concept of the five human relationships (wulun), held highly in Confucius’ thoughts, and it helped him win many friends in Nanjing and convinced the Chinese intellectuals that not all Europeans were “barbarians” after all.56 Ricci’s translation approach would follow a similar “accommodating” tactic (or using Schleiermacher’s terminology, a Confucian-style “domesticated” approach) – to introduce Western and Christian concepts using terms that were familiar, or at least not unsophisticated or offensive to the ears of the Confucian literati. These domesticated Chinese terms gave Catholicism a ring of familiarity to the educated Chinese audience, but also carried with them pre-existing imagery and ideas embedded in the Chinese classical works. Hence not long after Ricci’s death there was a huge debate among the second-generation of Jesuit translators regarding the “question of terms”,57 with critics of Ricci questioning his decisions in sanctioning such “loaded” Chinese translation terminology.58 Although some modern authors argue that Ricci had adapted the Chinese Confucian terms with a hidden agenda 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  56  Charles Ronan and Bonnie Oh (eds.) East Meets West: The Jesuits in China, 1582-1773 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1988) 67. 57  The debate was so fierce that it even led to a fatality – Nicolas Trigault (金尼閣, author of Xiru Ermu Zi 西儒耳目資 ("An Aid to the Eyes and Ears of the Western Literati")) committed suide in 1628 as he suffered from a depression triggered by his guilt over failing to defend the use of Shangdi among the Jesuits. See Liam Matthew Brockey, Journey to the East – The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579-1724 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) 87. 58  A familiar debate would erupt among missionary translators in the mid-19th century over the translation of the term “God”, with the British missionaries preferred “Shangdi” (the Ricci approach), while the American missionaries preferring “Shen” – a less culturally loaded term. The dispute would lead to the breakup of the two groups of translators during the making of the Delegates Version, and was only partially resolved by a compromise they reached during the completion of the Union Version. The Term Question is a major topic that warrants a completely separate study, but for a brief account of the controversy from the time of Ricci to that of the Protestant missionary translators, see Sung-Deuk Oak, “Competing Chinese Names for God: The Chinese Term Question and Its Influence upon Korea”, Journal of Korean Religions, 3(2), 2012, 89-115.  23 to reinterpret them and to transform the Chinese culture,59 it is obvious that no matter what his ultimate intentions were, his approach was dictated by the presence of a strong Confucian intellectual culture, which was less than willing or ready to embrace other cultures that were foreign, and presumably inferior, if not far inferior to them.  Hence, the Protestant missionaries were the first major group of translators of foreign texts in China who got to operate during a time when Chinese esteem was beginning to take a serious beating, and when Chinese intellectuals were having real doubts not just about the country’s military and technological might, but also their cultural superiority over foreigners. For the first time in the history of major translational activities in China, the asymmetrical relationship of cultural dominance (even if just a conceptual one held by the Chinese intellectuals) had been balanced out, if not reversed. With such polity reality in China, the impact of the early Protestant translators on the social structure, languages, and cultural fabric of China should be a very interesting field.    1.2 RECENT TRENDS IN BIBLE TRANSLATION STUDIES “(Translation) is never innocent. There is always a context in which the translation takes place, always a history from which a text emerges and into which a text is transposed,” wrote Susan Bassnet and André Lefevere.60 Ever since poststructuralist criticisms were applied to translation studies in the late 1980s, the focus on translation 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  59  Zhang Qiong,“Translation as Cultural Reform: Jesuit Scholastic Psychology in the Transformation of the Confucian Discourse on Human Nature” in John O’Malley (ed.) The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts, 1540-1773 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 366. 60  André Lefevere and Susan Bassnett, “Proust’s Grandmother and the Thousand the One Nights”, in Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André, Translation, History and Culture (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990) 11.  24 theories has greatly expanded from being the mere transferal of words and sentences in the syntactic and semantic sense, to the effect of cultural communication, interaction, and manipulation. This broadened understanding of translation and its role in shaping cultures was initially summarized up in the 1985 anthology The Manipulation of Literature.61 The writers argue against the traditional perception of viewing translation as secondary (“second-hand”) or even inferior (“second-rate”), but opts to regard translation as a member within a “polysystem” of literature, always struggling for domination, characterized by a continual state of flux and shifts: 62 In a given literature, translations may at certain times constitute a separate subsystem, with its own characteristics and models, or be more or less fully integrated into the indigenous system, they may form part of the system’s prestigious centre or remain a peripheral phenomenon; they may be used as ‘primary’ polemical weapons to challenge the dominant poetics, or they may shore up and reinforce the prevailing conventions. From the point of view of the target literature, all translation implies a degree of manipulation of the source text for a certain purpose.   The articles demonstrate that translations, far from being secondary and derivative, were often one of the primary literary tools used by social institutions such as governments, schools, and religious bodies, to manipulate a target society, in order to construct a certain kind of desirable culture. It is upon this subversive understanding of the authoritative relationship between source and target literature that Susan Bassnet and 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  61  The book features a number of prominent translation theorists including Theo Hermans, André Lefevere, Susan Bassnet, and Maria Tymoczko. 62  Theo Hermans, “Translation Studies and a New Paradigm”, in Hermans, Theo (ed.), The Manipulation of Literature: Studies in Literary Translation, (London: Croom Helm, 1985) 10-11.  25 André Lefevere proposed the need to understand translation as a form of “rewriting”,63 rather than a strict representation of the original materials, with the traditional attachment to “faithfulness” critically reexamined. To these authors, “the target text functions in the target culture the way the source text functioned in the source culture”.64 Hence, culture has succeeded over word or sentence, and become the “operational unit” of translation. In other words, with the old system of evaluating translations as “good” and “bad”, “faithful” and “unfaithful” going out of favor, the emphasis has shifted to the functional effectiveness of a translation in its targeted context, as compared to that of the source text in its original context. Hence, bilingualism is not the only thing that is required of a translator, but more importantly, biculturalism.   This expanded view of understanding and studying translation practices gave rise to what we now call the “Cultural Turn” in the 1990s,65 with scholars no longer able to view translations as a pure aesthetic act, but something deeply embedded in their own cultural and political systems. During the early phase of this turn, with researchers seeking to further understand the relationship between translations and the power to 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  63  Susan Bassnet and André Lefevere, “Preface” in Susan Bassnet and André Lefevere (eds.) Translation, History and Culture, ix. Or in Sujit Mukherjee’s term, a form of “new writing”, as his refers to the English translation of various types of Indian literature, “Translation as new writing”, in Translation as Discovery and Other Essays on Indian Literature in English Translation (Hyderabad: Orient Longman, 1994) 77-85. 64   André Lefevere and Susan Bassnett, “Proust’s Grandmother and the Thousand the One Nights”, in Bassnett, Susan and Lefevere, André, Translation, History and Culture (London: Pinter Publishers, 1990) 8. 65  Lefevere and Bassnett are the first to use the term (“Proust’s Grandmother and the Thousand the One Nights”, 4.), but they credit the coining of it to Mary Snell-Hornby (“Linguistic Transcoding or Cultural Transferal? A Critique of Translation Theory in Germany”, in Susan Bassnett and André Lefevere, Translation, History and Culture, 79-86). Researchers usually trace the beginning of the “culture turn” to Lefevere’s and Bassnett’s anthology, hence the beginning of the 1990s, even though Snell-Hornby herself regards the “turn” as having its origin in the 1980s (“The culture turns of the 1980s”, in Mary Snell-Hornby (ed.) The Turns of Translation Studies (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2006) 47).  26 shape culture and society, a number of them turned to postcolonial theory and saw translation as a major activity in establishing and maintaining colonial rule.66 The recurring theme is that although translation enables exchanges and interaction between cultures, the process is never a “fair” or neutral one; instead, translation had become one of the primary ways Western colonial countries and cultures used to subject non-western cultures and “others” to the realm of the “Third World”. By making another culture comprehensible, the process of translation entailed varying degrees of “violence” – whether by a process of familiarizing foreign concepts into one’s own culturally familiar or accepted forms and concepts, or through selecting what materials were “representable” of the other culture and should be translated.67 Researchers of Latin American colonial history have long articulated this partnership between translation and colonial control, arguing that the Spaniards had used translation as a way of “reducing the native language and culture to accessible objects for and subjects of divine and imperial intervention”.68 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  66  R. S. Sugirtharajah explains postcolonial criticism, in a nutshell, as a theory with several functions: “(a) it examines and explains especially social, cultural, and political conditions such as nationality, ethnicity, race, and gender both before and after colonialism; (b) it interrogates the often one-sided history of nations, cultures, and peoples; and (c) it engages in a critical revision of how the ‘other’ is represented.” Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 12-13. To Homi Bhabha, one of the earliest advocates of postcolonial criticism, the aim of postcolonialism is to “intervene in those ideological discourses of modernity that attempt to give a hegemonic ‘normality’ to the uneven development and the differential, often disadvantaged, history of nations, races, communities, peoples. They formulate their critical revisions around issues of cultural difference, social authority and political discrimination in order to reveal the antagonistic and ambivalent movements within the ‘rationalizations’ of modernity”, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge, 1994) 171. For John McLeod, it is simply an exploration of the “inseparable relationship between history and culture in the primary context of colonialism and its consequences”, in “Introduction,” in John McLeod (ed.) The Routledge Companion to Postcolonial Studies (London: Routledge, 2007) 8. 67  Anuradha Dingwaney, “Introduction: Translating ‘Third World’ Cultures”, Between Languages and Cultures: Translation and Cross-Cultural Texts (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburg Press, 1995) 4-6. 68   Vicente Rafael, Contracting Colonialism: Translation and Christian Conversion in Tagalog Society under Early Spanish Rule (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988) 213.  27 Eric Cheyfitz even declares that translation was “the central act of European colonization and imperialism in America”.69 To these postcolonial critics, translation had been a manipulating process used to establish and maintain the control of colonial powers over others.70  The “Cultural Turn” has had a considerable impact on the studies of biblical translation too. Glenn Kerr argues that since the 1990s, the focus of biblical translation has been as much on social and cultural issues as on linguistic features, and there has been a general realization that any bible translation involves three cultures – the ancient biblical culture, the modern target culture, as well as the mediating culture of the translators.71 Stanley Porter also believes that for New Testament scholars this cultural appreciation in biblical translation will have far more important consequences than other recent issues, such as gender-specific language and the supposed anti-Semitism in translation.72 As with the general field in translation studies, postcolonial criticisms have also emerged as an important tool in biblical translation studies. Sugirtharajah argues in Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation that translation has traditionally been a tool of colonization aimed at converting the natives to British ways of thoughts and religious beliefs. He notes that “since the invader and the invaded spoke different 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  69  Eric Cheyfitz, The Poetics of Imperialism: Translation and Colonization from the Tempest to Tarzan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 104. 70  Scholars are also increasingly raising questions about the ability of postcolonial criticism to understand a complex society. For example, Ieva Zauberga, who uses the example of Latvian literature being translated into English and read all over the world, argues that English can equally be used as a tool of cross-cultural communication, rather than just a unidirectional tool of power. “Rethinking power relations in translation”, Across Languages and Cultures 1:1 (2000) 49-59. 71  Glenn Kerr, “Dynamic Equivalence and Its Daughters: Placing Bible Translation Theories in Their Historical Context”, Journal of Translation, 7:1 (2011) 17. 72  Stanley Porter, “Some issues in modern translation theory and study of the Greek New Testament”, CR:BS 9 (2001) 371-372.  28 languages and practiced different religions, translation played a crucial role in enabling the colonizers in conquering and converting the other”, and the description of the dire situations under which the translators went about their work became something like a “virtual hagiography”.73 This postcolonial argument has continued to lend an important perspective to studying biblical translation, with Jason Coker proclaiming that a form of “Christian imperialism” has been the “norm” of translation activities of the English Bible into other languages: 74 The explicit missionary activity within translating the Bible into non-Western languages has gone hand-in-hand with Western imperialism for centuries and, in many cases, continues to do so … The Bible, once produced, is used to authorize and legitimize the missionary and the missionary’s culture. In this way, Bible translations have been use to authorize Western societies’ domination/conversion of non-Western cultures.  Not all will agree with Coker’s rather radical assessment, but this postcolonial approach remains a useful and powerful tool in critiquing biblical translation nonetheless, with Raj Nadella also recently arguing that South Indian missionary translators followed a colonial model of biblical translation during, and even after, the colonial era.75 When it comes to Chinese bible translators of the early 19th century, names like Karl Gützlaff and Elijah 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  73 R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 156 74  Jason Coker, “Translation from this place”, in Scott Elliot and Roland Boer (eds.) Ideology, Culture, and Translation (Atlanta: SBL, 2012) 27. 75  Raj Nadella, “Postcolonialism, Translation, and Colonial Mimicry” in Scott Elliot and Roland Boer (eds.) Ideology, Culture, and Translation (Atlanta: SBL, 2012) 49-58.  29 Bridgman still stir a lot of questions and controversies about their involvement in the bigger scheme of Western colonialism and imperialism.76  1.3  THE COMPLEX WORLD OF BIBLE TRANSLATORS  Some scholars have since struck back against this trend of viewing bible translators as little more than pawns serving the interests of colonial powers. L. Sanneh tries to make a distinction between Christianity and institutional Christendom, and argues that although cultural imperialism has happened in the name of Christianity, “Christianity is separate from the power interests of the ideological state, whether imperial or secular”, and it is “not intrinsically a religion of cultural uniformity”.77 For example in Vietnam, missionary translators struggled when translating for minority groups, not because the translators tried to initiate uniformity, but the minority readers themselves felt suspicious towards a new minority language translation when it did not match a translation of another major language group.78 In fact, against the ongoing modern trend of minority languages extinction, Brunn argues that “perhaps no one is making a greater contribution on a worldwide scale toward preserving these vulnerable languages than Bible 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  76  Jessie Gregory Lutz argues that Gützlaff was such a complicated person, that he was certainly not just a participant in Western imperial expansion, as postcolonial critic would have branded him. Opening China: Karl F.A. Gützlaff and Sino-Western Relations, 1827-1852 (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2008) 313-319. 77  L. Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity? The Gospel Beyond the West. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 85; 130. 78 William A. Smalley, “Language and Culture in the Development of Bible Society Translation Theory and Practice”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research, Vol. 19.2 (Apr, 1995) 62.  30 translators”.79 The bible translators have often come to empower the mother tongues, rather than subduing them.80 The evidence is strong that the bible translation activities of missionaries helped many marginal cultures survive the worldwide trend of disappearing languages, as a result of the global culture, such as in the case of Hawaiian culture.81 Sanneh further argues that Christianity, through its translators, has been “behind the creation of more dictionaries and grammars of the world’s languages than any other force in history”, which is consistent with what we have seen in the case of the first Protestant Chinese translators.82  In order to understand the context in which the first Protestant translators of the Chinese Bible operated, postcolonial criticisms can offer some helpful perspectives, but there are also many other factors that had an important impact on the missionaries. One is the bible society, which could exert great financial and ideological control on the translators that it chose to support or not. A theory that is helpful to explore such a relationship is the theory of patronage, first suggested by André Lefevere. In the larger context of a Cultural Turn, a “patron” of translation activities is defined as “something like the powers (persons, institutions) that can either further or hinder the reading, writing 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  79  Dave Brunn, “Bible Translation: Decelerating the Process of Language Shift”, in Stanley D. Brunn (ed.), The Changing World Religion Map – Sacred Places, Identities, Practices and Politics, vol.3 (New York: Springer, 2015) 1103. 80  William Adrian, “Is Bible Translation ‘Imperialist’? Challenging Another Anti-Christian Bias in the Academy”, Christian Higher Education, 6:4 (2007) 291. 81  L. Sanneh, Whose Religion is Christianity?, 293-294. 82  It is certainly true with the early Protestant Chinese translators, with Robert Morrison, Joshua Marshman, Walter Medhurst, and William Milne all producing substantial Chinese dictionaries and grammar works; see also ibid., 69.  31 and rewriting of literature”.83 More interested in promoting or defending its own ideology, the patrons are usually “more interested in the ideology of literature than in its poetics”, and would allow the “professionals” (such as the translators) to make decisions about the poetics, as long as the ideological front is secured.84 Lefevre argues that a patron can be the rich and power (e.g. Medici), a royalty (e.g. Louis XIV), a political party, a group of persons, or a religious body, etc. The real world situation is almost certainly more complicated, with a translator (or a group of translators) often having to deal with the requests and priorities of multiple patrons. Alan Cadwallader for example has looked at the process of the completion of the Revised Version, and accurately demonstrated how the interests of a sovereign nation, the Established Church and the various Christian denominations had impinged on the activities and decisions of the translators throughout.85 Lefevre identifies three ways a patron can exert his influence on the translators: by ideological control, economic provision, and the granting of social status.86 There is some debate on whether hindering of translation activity (instead of promoting) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  83  André Lefevere, Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame (London: Routledge, 1992) 15. 84  “The patron ‘delegates authority’ to the professional where poetics is concerned.” Ibid. 85  An interesting parallel can be drawn to a recent work by Alan Cadwallader, who writes about the fierce politics going on behind the completion of the Revised Version of the English Bible in late 19th century, and how the complex social and political context of the translation agents played a big role in the end products of translation: “(The) three aspects – the relation between an imperial, sovereign nation and the position of an Established Church, the integrity and authenticity of denominations within a nation, and the competitive tensions of national and international prestige and responsibility – highlight in magnified proportions Umberto Eco’s insight that translation is not merely about the familiar polarities of source text and target audience. It is about the politics of negotiation about the end-translation, the means by which that point is reached, and the pragmatic factors (time constraints, publication agreements, etc.) that constantly impinge upon decision making.” “‘His love has been our banner on our road’: Identity politics and the Revised Version” in in Scott Elliot and Roland Boer, (eds.) Ideology, Culture, and Translation (Atlanta: SBL, 2012) 49-58. 86  André Lefevere, Translation, Rewriting and Manipulation of Literary Fame, 16-17.  32 can be considered an action of patronage,87 but in our study we accept it as part of a patronage system, such as when a patron discourages a translator from working on a translation piece already done by another of its sponsored translators, or when it terminates support for a project until the ideology matches what it prescribes. 88 In recent years the patronage theory has been used to study Chinese translation activities of Protestant missionaries, with George Mak arguing that the BFBS played the role of a major patron of the Union Version through financial support, drafting translation principles, and granting honorary titles to the missionaries who took part in the process.89 John Lai has explored the way bible tract societies like the RTS (Religious Tract Society) and the ATS (American Tract Society) on one hand financed the tracts production, and on the other controlled the choice of texts to be translated and published.90  Christopher Daily also demonstrates how both Robert Morrison and William Milne operated according to the strategy set out by their mission society, the London Missionary Society, and did their best to translate and distribute the Chinese Bible to the locals, even when the society leaders did not know much about how to proceed.91 So while postcolonial criticisms have been a powerful tool to understand the Bible translators, methodologies 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  87  Bai Liping, “Patronage as ‘a productive network’ in translation: a case study in China”, Perspectives: Studies in Translatology, vol. 17, issue 4 (2009) 215-216. 88  An example of the former is when Walter Medhurst was discouraged from working on a new translation to replace the Morrison/Milne Bible in the late 1830s, even though like Morrison and Milne, Medurst was also commissioned by the LMS; for the latter, the BFBS’s policy on the translation of the Greek word βαπτίζω in the 1830s would be a good example (see Chapter 5).  89   George Kam Wah Mak, “ ‘Laissez-faire’ or Active Intervention? The Nature of the British and Foreign Bible Society’s Patronage of the Translation of the Chinese Union Versions”, The Journal of Royal Asiatic Society, Series 3, 20, 2 (2010) 186. 90  John T. P. Lai, “Institutional Patronage – The Religious Tract Society and the Translation of Christian Tracts in Nineteenth-Century  China”, The Translator, 13:1 (2007) 57. 91  Christopher Daily, Robert Morrison and the Protestant Plan for China, 195; see also Chapter 3.  33 like patronage theory can also help researchers understand the world of the early Protestant Chinese Bible translators, in relationship to their patrons.  1.4 METHODOLOGY This study seeks to examine the two groups of early Protestant Christian translators working on the first translations of the Chinese Bible, during the first three decades of the 19th century. Taking advantage of a large number of previously hard-to-access documents now made available online, as well as one important piece of manuscript that has never been examined before, we will use three approaches to reconstruct the separated yet interactive, rival, and at times hostile relationship between the Morrison/Milne group and the Marshman/Lassar group, and try to determine what factors contributed to the eventual outcome of the acceptance of the two earliest Chinese Bibles.  1) A wealth of primary materials such as the personal letters and journals of Morrison, Marshman, and Milne, contemporary records and reports of Mission and Bible Societies (including the British and Bible Society Annual Reports, the Baptist Missionary Magazine, the American Bible Society Report, and the London Mission Society Annual Reports), personal memorials, notes and manuscripts, biographies, and so on will be examined through the lens of historical and sociocultural criticisms. The goal is to identify and evaluate how various historical, social and cultural factors affected these translators in the process of preparing their Bible translations. Special attention will be given to the difference in location where the two groups of translators operated (Canton and Serampore), which led to the different political environment and historical  34 development at the two locales. This study will also consider other aspects such as the unique personal and social circumstances that enabled them to commence and finish their works, as well as factors such as the use of existing literature, help from natives and printing facilities, which were all crucial for understanding the thought process and decision-making of these translators.  A sociocultural critical examination of these primary documents will be conducted, with a specific focus to determine how the mission agenda and mandates of the mission and bible societies came to influence and, at times, pressure the missionaries into making certain translation decisions and approaches. The study aims to examine closely the social and religious networking of the Protestant translators, and how various sociocultural factors impacted the linguistic outcome of their translated texts.   2) A detailed textual and historical critical examination of the Scripture translations of Johannes Lassar, Joshua Marshman, Robert Morrison and William Milne will be conducted to determine their possible relationship to likely sources such as Jean Basset’s British Museum Manuscript (Sloane 3599) as well as to one another. These valuable manuscripts include the 1807 Chinese translation of the Book of Matthew (Jiayin zun matiao pusa zhiyu《嘉音遵(口罵) (口挑)92 菩薩之語》) by Lassar, which is being critically examined for the first time ever. Courtesy of the Lambeth Palace Library of London, the current copy under review is the only extant copy in the world, and the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  92  What is inside the brackets represents one Chinese character – one of the phonetic characters created by pairing of the character “mouth” (口) with another character, whose only purpose is to provide the information of how the composite character should sound.  These phonetic characters, like the katakana phonetic symbols used in the Japanese, were often used to represent characters not writable in Chinese (e.g. Cantonese slang words) or for the transliteration of foreign characters. A more detailed discussion is provided in Chapter 2.  35 long-buried historical piece promises to shed light on the earliest Protestant attempts on translating the Scriptures into the Chinese language. Other important pieces include the 1807 handwritten copy of the Basset translation used by Morrison, courtesy of the Hong Kong University Library; the 1810 Matthew by Marshman and Lassar (Ci jiayu youyu zitiao suozhao《此嘉語由於(口孖)( 口挑)所著》), courtesy of the Cambridge University Library; the 1811 Mark (Ci jiayin you zile suozhao《此嘉音由(口孖) ( 口勒)所著》) and 1813 Luke (Ruohan suoshu zhi fuyin《若翰所書之福音》) by Marshman and Lassar, courtesy of the Bibliothèque nationale de France; the 1811 Luke by Morrison (Sheng lujia chuanfuyin zhi shu《聖路加傳福音之書》), courtesy of the Andover-Harvard Theological Library; the 1813 New Testament by Morrison (Yesu Jilishidu wozhu jiuzhe xinyizhaoshu – juyi banyan yichu《耶穌基利士督我主救者新遺詔書-俱依本言譯出》), in 8 volumes, courtesy of the National Archives of Australia; the 1822 complete bible translation by Marshman and Lassar, courtesy of the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin93; as well as the 1823 completion bible translation by Morrison and Milne (Shentian Shengshu《神天聖書》), courtesy of Dr. Kenny Wang of the University of Western Sydney. The in-depth study will examine textual characteristics including the diction, syntax, grammatical features, and phonetic expressions of these texts. These textual examinations and comparisons, many of which were never performed before, will provide us with information regarding the translation criteria and priorities of these works, as well as other valuable historical insights. These include for example the extent to which Morrison relied on the Basset Manuscript when preparing his translations, precisely when 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  93  Marshman and Lassar used English titles for their translations (e.g. “The New Testament in Chinese” or “The Pentateuch in Chinese”), although they did provide Chinese titles for individual books.  36 Marshman and Lassar began to gain access to the Basset copy and started referencing it in their works, how likely it was that the Protestant translators used Hebrew and Greek sources in translating the Scriptures, and why Morrison began his translation with Acts – a very unusual choice when it comes to translating the New Testament.  3) According to postcolonial criticism, translation that is carried out between two cultures in an asymmetrical power relationship is always “unequal”, where the hegemonic culture exerts its influence and ideology over the weaker counterpart. At the surface, the translation activities carried out by the Protestant missionaries fit this scenario perfectly, as these were carried out at a time when the Western powers were exercising great colonial influence and control over India (where the Serampore translators worked), and beginning to do so in China. In fact, quite a number of missionaries were employed by western trade companies and governments. For instance Lassar used to work for the Macau/Portuguese government before going to Serampore, and Morrison took up a position in the East India Company in order to gain legal status to stay in Canton. Even the publication of his Chinese dictionary volumes was funded by the East Indian Company.94 Lin Kenan argues that since only 6% of the 795 titles 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  94  Barton Starr believes the legacy of Morrison will always be inevitably intertwined with his involvement with the colonial governments: “What is the legacy of Robert Morrison? He is often praised in articles and books on mission history – and occasionally is vilified in works dealing with imperialism in China because of his work with the East India Company and the two British embassies to China. The truth, as usual lies somewhere in between. Clearly, he shared some of the prejudices of his early nineteenth-century British contemporaries and the desire of evangelicals to share the Gospel with the “heathen” of China. It is equally clear, however, that as Morrison continued to live, learn, and work among the Chinese, he gained a profound respect for Chinese culture, language, and some of the people. While he was not able to move fully beyond himself and the attitudes of his times, neither was he an agent of imperialism in China. He increasingly came to see his role not only as a precursor for other missionaries but also as a bridge between two cultures.” J. Barton Starr, “The Legacy of Robert Morrison,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol.22, no.2 (1998) 75.  37 translated by the missionary translators between 1810 and 1867 were about humanities and sciences (topics that the general Chinese readers might find useful), but 80% were on Bible and religious tracts, the priorities of Westerners (in this case the missionaries and their societies) were clearly the deciding factor in the selection of texts – “a fact indicating that the countries they came from were in an ascendant position in the balance of power during the period”.95 Yet, even as the dominance of the Western powers over China began to increase in the early 1840s, missionary translators were more committed than ever to “domesticating” their translations. Translators such as Walter Medhurst would translate the Bible into more refined classical Chinese, using Chinese idioms and figure of speech, making them more in tone with traditional Chinese literature, instead of more literal and “foreignized” terms like what Morrison and Marshman did. 96 J. Barton Starr also believes that even though Morrison worked for the East Indian Government and helped the British Government with translation, it was out of great financial need and legal considerations, not because he was serving as an “agent of imperialism” and with colonial interests in mind.97 The situation in China in the early 19th century does not fully comply with the basic assumptions of postcolonial theories, because the assumed 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  95  Lin Kenan, “Translation as a catalyst for social change in China” in Maria Tymoczko and Edwin Gentzler (eds.) Translation and Power (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002) 176. 96  This general observation is made when comparing Gützlaff’s translation completed in 1839, which was a fairly classical work and took a highly domesticated approach to translating names and concepts of the Bible, to some later versions completed right after the signing of the Treaty of Tianjin, such as the Bridgman and Culbertson Bible of 1864, which was comparatively much more literal and less domesticated. 97  As previously noted in J. Barton Starr, “The Legacy of Robert Morrison,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol.22, no.2 (1998), 75. Morrison came to dread working for the East India Company so much that even when facing the possibility of losing William Milne as a helper, he would advise the youngster not to take up a position at the Company just to enable him to stay in China. See Chapter 4.  38 “asymmetrical power relationship” between China and the West was multilayered and much more complex – China might be militarily the weaker of the two sides at that point, yet it does not necessarily mean that it regarded itself as culturally weaker all the time, or that the translators had a similar perspective. Clearly, a simplistic dichotomous model of power alone is not sufficient to analyze a rich and complicated context like that of China.98  In order to further our sociological understanding of the works and activities of the early Protestant translators, this study will focus more on the theory of patronage of translation, and explore the important roles played by the sponsors behind the translators – the bible and mission societies. These include the London Missionary Society that Morrison and Milne belonged to, the Baptist Serampore Mission which Marshman and Lassar belonged to, and more importantly the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society, which would become major sponsors and promoters of Chinese Bible translation works.99 We will examine the kind of objectives and expectations the patrons set for their translators, the financial incentives (or restraints) they provided, as well as the recognition and other forms of support they used to encourage translators to work towards their ideological goals. By comparing this data with the insights gathered from the sociocultural and historical critical examinations of the texts, we hope to have a 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  98  Edwin Gentzler and Maria Tymoczko have also cautioned about the “uncritical application of power dichotomies” in the early stages of the Cultural Turn in translation studies, in which “scholars were inclined to see an either/or situation with regard to translation: either the translator would collude with the status quo and produce fluent, self-effacing translations, or oppose a particular hegemony and use foreignizing strategies to import new and unfamiliar terms to the receiving culture.” (“Introduction” in Tymoczko, Maria and Gentzler, Edwin (eds.) Translation and Power (Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press, 2002) xviii). 99  George Kam Wah Mak has also examined the role played by the British and Foreign Bible Society as a patron, focusing on its patronage of the Chinese Union Versions at the close of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th.  39 better understanding of the early Protestant translators and the sociological and political world they operated in, and determine the reasons for the lasting legacy of Robert Morrison and his works, and the obscurity of the Chinese Bible translation mission of the Serampore Baptists.     40 2.  SERAMPORE AND THE BAPTIST CHINA MISSION   The Baptists have a legacy of involvement in missions and Bible translations in the Far East.1 The famous “Serampore Trio” of William Carey, Joshua Marshman and William Ward and their work in India had inspired generations of missionaries among the Baptists and other denominations to engage in mission and biblical translations.2 Carey created the Baptist Missionary Society in 1792, and launched the mission in Bengal in 1793. In 1800 he moved to Serampore and was joined by Marshman, a schoolteacher, and the printer William Ward, establishing the missionary community there.3  The Serampore approach to missions was holistic in nature, emphasizing not just religious evangelism but educational and social missions as well, setting up schools and launching literary and social programs in the Indian communities.4 Because of this holistic approach in mission and their successes, the famous philanthropist and abolitionist William Wilberforce would refer to the Serampore Mission as “one of the chief glories” of the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  1  For a brief introduction see Joyce Chung-Yan Chan, William Dean and the Making of the First Chinese Study Bible (Macon: Mercer University Press, 2014) 55-72. As for a history of the Baptist Missionary Society, please see Brian Stanley, The History of the Baptist Missionary Society, 1792-1992 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1992).  2  Serampore, founded on the banks of River Hooghly, 3 miles north of Calcutta, was chosen because as a colony under the Danish flag, it was exempt from the ban on missionary activities imposed by the East India Company in the British territories. See, Julius Richter, A History of the Indian Mission (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1908) 134, and Peter J. Kitson, Forging Romantic China: Sino-British Cultural Exchange 1760-1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 60. 3  M. A. Laird, “The Contribution of the Serampore Missionaries to Education in Bengal, 1793-1837”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 31, No. 1 (1968) 92. 4  K. L. Richardson, “The Serampore Trio: An Ecumenical Perspective,” Indian Journal of Theology 35.1 (1993) 30-32.  41 British nation.5  Even the translation approach of the Baptist missionaries was influenced by this mindset, as Carey preaches on the importance for missionaries to learn the foreign languages, and understand and appreciate the native customs and cultures, in order to effectively share the Gospel to the natives in their own tongues: 6 The Missionaries must be men of great piety, prudence, courage, and forbearance … and when arrived at the place of their definition, their first business must be to gain some acquaintance with the language of the native, (for which purpose two would be better than one) … They must be very careful not to resent injuries which may be offered to them, nor to think highly of themselves …   The first and main focus of biblical translation for the Serampore Mission was on the many Indian languages and dialects. By 1817, Carey would claim that they had translated or had begun translating the Bible into “nearly forty” Indian languages, even though most of these were “entirely derived from Sungskrit (Sanskrit)”.7 The Serampore Chinese Mission was launched as an expansion of the Baptist mission works on the Oriental Languages, and unlike the usual holistic approach, it would focus mainly on the linguistic side: the studying of the Chinese language and the translation of the Scriptures into Chinese. The change of strategy was a result of the accidental nature of this mission, and the reality that the Serampore missionaries were not geographically located in China. 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  5  In a letter written by Wilberforce to the Haytian (nowadays Haiti) Government on 16 December 1820, in Robert Isaac Wilberforce and Samuel Wilberforce (eds.) The Correspondence of William Wilberforce, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1840) 394. 6  William Carey, An Enquiry into the Obligations of Christians to Use Means for the Conversion of the Heathen (Leicester: Ann Ireland, 1792) 75. 7  In a letter from Carey to Dr. Thomas Baldwin, First Secretary of the General Missionary Convention of the Baptist Denomination in the United States of America for Foreign Missions on 23 July 23, 1816. Reprinted in The American Baptist Magazine, and Missionary Intelligencer, No.2, Vol. 1 (Cornhill: Lincoln & Edmands, March 1817) 64.  42 This will have a big impact on the eventual reception of their Chinese Scriptures, but we will first examine how the Serampore Mission came to include Chinese as one of their focuses.  2.1 THE ARMENIAN TRANSLATOR Johannes Lassar, an Armenian immigrant who grew up in Macao, was first mentioned as a Chinese translator of the Bible in a letter addressing the British and Foreign Bible Society on 13 Sept 1806. The sender was Rev. David Brown, the Provost of the College of Fort William and an active promoter of translating the Scriptures into oriental languages, who had been visiting the Baptist Mission at Serampore. Before Brown left for Calcutta he asked the Serampore missionaries working on Bible translations to send a few specimens of their work to him. Among these missionaries was Lassar, who sent a small sample of his manuscript written in Chinese. Brown remarks: 8 Mr. Professor Lassar has sent me three Chinese specimens, with a letter in the same language, the work of his own head and hand. As the above little specimens are the hasty production of this morning, I do not recommend them to severe criticism, but Mr. Lassar is a thorough Chinese, and will do the great work of translating the Scriptures into that language, if it please God to spare his life five or six years. He reads every thing in the language as readily as you do English, and writes it as rapidly. The other manuscript specimens are in a rough state, and not fit to be submitted to critical inspection. The Shanscrit [Sanskrit] and Chinese (apparently the most difficult of access) are discovered to be the most practical of all the languages yet undertaken. 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  8  The Religious Repository, 1 (1807) 95; the account is also recorded in the Chinese Repository 4 (1835) 252.  43  Little is known about Lassar, even today. Following his death in 1835, a brief biography of him was published in the The Chinese Repository, but even that is full of uncertainties and assumptions: 9 Mr. Lassar was an Armenian, born, we believe, at Macao. His parents had two Chinese servants, a man and a maid-servant – both Christians. With them it seems probable that the boy learned to speak the Chinese language in his childhood. We have been informed, that subsequently his father procured for his son a Chinese teacher from Canton, who taught him to read and write the language. He left Macao, our informant thinks, in 1802, for Calcutta, where report said he was engaged by the English government as Chinese interpreter.   Apparently Lassar was employed by the Portuguese government when he was in Macao, responsible for correcting the official correspondence between the Portuguese sectors at Macao and in at the court of Peking. Some time later he moved to Serampore and was resident at the Mansion-house, where he began teaching Chinese to three missionaries there, one of them being Joshua Marshman.10 Another source provides a more detailed account of Lassar following his employment in Macao: that he was willing to give up his commercial pursuits there and went to serve at the College of Fort Williams in Calcutta for a salary of 450 pounds a year. 11  Even though Lassar’s 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  9  The Chinese Repository 4 (Canton, 1835) 252. 10  The New Annual Register or General Repository of History, Politics, and Literature for the Year 1807 (London: Stockdale, 1807) 94. 11  Claudius Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia: With Notices on the Translation of the Scriptures into the Oriental Languages (New York: Largin & Thompson, 1812), 9. See also Peter J. Kitson, Forging Romantic China: Sino-British Cultural Exchange 1760-1840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013) 60.  44 qualifications and ability were highly regarded, the salary proved too much for the College to afford, and a plan was devised to retain his service. The College proposed to the Baptist Mission in Serampore a deal: that Lassar would be allowed to reside in Serampore, and in return he would teach the Chinese language to one of its elder missionaries and two of their younger missionaries.12 With Carey declining the offer to acquire another major language, Marshman ended up being the one learning Chinese from Lassar, along with two sons of his and one of Carey’s. Hugh Pearson’s memoir of Claudius Buchanan provides more details and a less flattering account of the sequence of events: Lassar did travel to Calcutta and was in a commercial venture initially, and “met with some difficulties” with the plummeting of the prices of tea, and had trouble continuing.13 Buchanan, serving as the Vice-Provost of the College of Fort William at the time, came to learn of Lassar’s linguistic ability and realized the opportunity for the College to finally support the translation works into Chinese. He managed to “liberate (Lassar) from his embarrassments” by providing him with a stipend of 300 rupees per month for translating the Scriptures and for instructing the students at Serampore.14 And after the College fell on hard times, Buchanan would personally shoulder the expense and continue the stipend payment to Lassar for another 3 years.15 Thanks to the special arrangement, according to a report in the First Serampore Memoir of 1808, “the lads” 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  12  Claudius Buchanan, Christian Researches in Asia, 10. 13  Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 45. 14  The report that Lassar was hired by William Carey to begin translating the Bible is incorrect; from our earliest and most reliable sources, Claudius Buchanan was behind the hiring and appointment of Lassar, with Carey and the Serampore Mission only cooperating with the arrangement. See Treasures of the Yenching: Seventy-fifth Anniversary of the Harvard-Yenching, Harvard-Yenching Library Studies, No.1 (Harvard College, 2003) 266. 15  Hugh Pearson, Memoirs of the life and writings of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan (Philadelphia: Benjamin & Thomas Kite, 1817) 174.  45 and Marshman were said to make great process in Chinese learning under the guidance of Lassar, such that their proficiency “could scarcely be expected from those more advanced in years”.16  Lassar’s translation of the Scriptures into Chinese also showed considerable progress. By 1807 a Chinese translation of the Book of Matthew was completed by Lassar himself, which was 3 years prior to a collaborative translation effort of the same book with Marshman, and 3 years ahead of Morrison’s first NT book translation of Acts.17 A copy of such was said to have been beautifully handwritten by Lassar himself, and submitted to the Archbishop of Canterbury for the collection at the Lambeth Library. 18  Another report claims that Lassar was also half way through with his translation of Luke by 1808, though a completed copy of that translation was never made available. If the claim is correct, Lassar probably had a change of plan and dropped the Luke project, and began collaborating with Marshman to work on Matthew (printed in 1810) and Mark (printed in 1811) instead. The two of them did finish a translation of Luke by 1813, but it is highly doubtful that they had based this version on Lassar’s own unfinished edition of 1808, given that the Baptist translators had already begun using the Basset Manuscript as a reference by then (their Luke 1813 shows a clear resemblance to Basset’s translation, as we shall see in Chapter 3).   The 1807 Matthew of Lassar has been mentioned in a number of important works of research, but no one seemed to be certain of its existence, and none has claimed to 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  16  The First Serampore Memoir (Dunstable: J.W. Morris, 1808) 52. 17  As shall be seen in Chapter 3, Morrison’s 1810 Acts was just a transcribed version of Jean Basset’s translation of Acts, and the first biblical book that can be said to be mostly the work of Morrison is in fact his Luke of 1811. 18  Claudius Buchanan, Christian Researches in, 10.  46 have seen the actual manuscript, let alone having conducted any research on it. After some detailed investigative work and relentless research and letter writing, this author has finally located the very manuscript of this translation, still safely kept in the Lambeth Palace Library in London as the historical records indicate! Thanks to the kind assistance of Senior Archivist Dr. Rachel Cosgrave, the author has been able to secure a copy of this very first Chinese translation attempt of the Christian Scriptures by a Protestant, a handwritten copy of the Book of Matthew beautifully crafted by Lassar himself.19 The first page of the manuscript has the following words written by Claudius Buchanan, dated on 04 May 1807: “To His Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury20 For the Lambeth Library; The Gospel of St. Matthew in the Chinese Language; Being the First Fruits of ‘The Christian Institution in the East’”. The idea of this “Christian Institution in the East” was conceived by Claudius Buchanan himself, with the goal of placing a professor in each of the principal Eastern provinces of the College to serve as a literary agent, studying the language and engaging in translation and printing.21 With the successful completion and presentation of this first biblical book in Chinese, it was not surprising to find Buchanan expressing great enthusiasm and admiration for the works of the Serampore translators. In a speech he gave on 21 February 1808 he said:  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  19  Manuscript MS2081, still part of a precious collection kept in the Lambeth Palace Library, London. Lassar, an Armenian by birth, was commissioned to translate the Bible first by the Protestant “Christian Institution”, then by the Baptist Mission in Serampore. Hence he is regarded as one of the earliest Protestant translators in this study. 20  The Archbishop of Canterbury at the time was Charles Manners-Sutton (1805-1828). 21  “[The Institute) was not intended to form an expensive establishment; but that a professor should be stationed as a literary agent of the college in each of the principal provinces of the east, to study a particular language, to collect information, to correspond with the society at home, to compose and to print books, and to instruct natives in printing.” Hugh Pearson, Memoirs of the life and writings of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, 276.  47 I must not … omit to commend the zealous and persevering labours of Mr. Lassar, and of those learned and pious persons associated with him; who have accomplished, for the future benefit, we may hope, of that immense and populous region, Chinese versions, in the Chinese character, of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke; throwing open that precious mine, with all its religious and moral treasures, to the largest associated population in the world.22    Unfortunately the Christian Institution concept was short-lived and never got off to an effective start; neither do we have evidence of Lassar ever finishing or publishing these editions of Mark and Luke after Matthew, as mentioned by Buchanan. This manuscript has never been studied, in brief or in-depth, until the current project, and since it is quite possibly the only extant copy of Lassar’s Matthew in Chinese, it is the only existing link and evidence we have to this “First Fruits” period of Protestant Chinese translation of the Christian Scriptures. Therefore, it is very important for us to take a closer look at the 1807 Lassar Matthew, because it represents the earliest example of the Protestant Chinese translation tradition - a tradition very different from Morrison’s, with the style and diction of the translation independent of the Jesuit tradition that came through the Basset Manuscript, introduced by Morrison.23 In addition, the translation of Matthew by Lassar also provides us with valuable insights about the other early Baptist translated works - namely the 1810 Matthew and 1811 Mark completed jointly by Marshman and Lassar - which allows us an idea of the kind of contribution Joshua Marshman was providing Lassar with, during his early years of translating. 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  22  Hugh Pearson, Memoirs of the life and writings of the Rev. Claudius Buchanan, 318. 23 A detailed account of Morrison’s use of Basset’s Manuscript, and how the Jesuit copy came to influence the Baptist translators in Serampore too after 1812, is given in Chapters 2 and 3.  48  One question arises: If Joshua Marshman only started to learn Chinese at the beginning of 1806,24 his knowledge of the language must have been quite limited in the first few years, so it is highly questionable how much he could have contributed to the actual process of translation being such a recent student of Chinese under Lassar; yet interestingly after 1807, almost all of the references made towards the Chinese Bible translation activities in association to the Serampore Baptists were attributed to Marshman alone, or Marshman and Lassar, with Marshman as the clear leader.25 Not only does this invert the teacher-student order, it has nothing to do with the alphabetical arrangement either. The most logical explanation is that Lassar’s involvement and contribution had been deliberately diminished, because it served better to have Marshman being the lead in the Serampore Chinese mission. A glimpse of the situation may be found in the account of John Marshman, Joshua’s son, who points out that a Mr. Burder, the secretary of the London Missionary Society (LMS), had “sneered at a translation made, as he observed, through the spectacles of an Armenian”.26 The comment was made in 1807, coinciding with the dispatch of Robert Morrison as a missionary to China by the LMS. According to John Marshman, the brewing rivalry between the two China Missions had kicked off with an uncomfortable realization – that Lassar’s nationality could become a liability. So perhaps the Serampore community’s decision to place Lassar’s name in a less prominent position was to do with a discriminatory disposition towards the ethnicity 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  24  Marshman was translating the Bible into Bengali and Sanskrit prior to 1806, and could have only turned his attention to Chinese afterwards. John Clark Marshman, The life and times of Carey, Marshman, and Ward. Embracing the history of the Serampore mission, 94. 25  In one source Lassar is listed just as an “assistant” to Marshman, see George Browne, The British and Foreign Bible Society, from its institution in 1804, to the close of its Jubilee in 1854, vol. II (London: BFBS, 1859) 117. 26  John Clark Marshman, The life and times of Carey, Marshman, and Ward. Embracing the history of the Serampore mission, 396.  49 of Lassar by some. Fair to say, this negative sentiment did not go as far as to pressure the community to go mum about Lassar’s contribution, but it did turn Marshman, a member of the “Serampore Trio”, already much respected for his work in the Bengali and Sanskrit Bibles, into the poster figure of the Serampore China mission after 1807, despite his relative inexperience with the Chinese language at that point.27 This period of the early rivalry between Morrison and the Serampore translators will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 4.  2.2 TEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF LASSAR’S MATTHEW OF 1807  The style of the Lassar Matthew translation of 1807 is unique, it served as a template for the earliest translations that he and Marshman completed together, and apparently shows no resemblance to any of the Chinese translations completed by the Catholics (Jean Basset’s or Louis de Poirot’s)28. There is a general adherence to Buddhist terminology, a large number of constructed transliterated terms, as well as a hint of southern dialectic characteristics. The following observation is made by a general evaluation of the Lassar version, and a comparison with a few earlier and later versions of Matthew, namely the Jean Basset translation (early 18th century), the Marshman and Lassar version of 1810, and Robert Morrison’s translation of 1813. Specially featured are 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  27  John Wherry confirms that “though Lassar continued his work upon (the Chinese Bible) until the end, the version has been known to the world as Marshman’s, the Rev. John Marshman, an English Baptist missionary, having been the ruling spirit in its production, and having given to it eleven or twelve years of unremitting hard labor.” He doesn’t give a reason for the disappearance of Lassar’s name, but seems to try to justify Marshman's eclipse of his teacher. “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, 48. 28  See Chapter 1.  50 either terms that are uniquely Lassar’s, or markedly different from other versions mentioned above. Since Lassar was the first Protestant missionary to undergo the task of translating into Chinese, and there is no indication that he had access to any other Chinese versions prior to him, his translation gives us a rare glimpse of the mindset of a Protestant Chinese translator operating in the early 19th century. Our interest lies in the language style and choice of diction of Lassar, as it might reflect his understanding and experience of the Chinese culture, and his use of the source text; I am also interested in seeing how much (if any) influence his work had over the translations of his Protestant colleagues in the subsequent decades. 2.2.1.  THE USE OF BUDDHIST TERMINOLOGY   Johannes Lassar’s work shows great liberty when it comes to using Buddhist terms for his translation,29 starting with the title of his Gospel According to Matthew, which he translated Jiayin zun matiao pusa zhiyu 嘉音遵(口罵)( 口挑)菩薩之語 (“The Gospel according to the words of Bodhisattva Matthew”). Pusa (菩薩), the Chinese term for the bodhisattva, 30 is widely used by the Buddhists to describe a large number of deities such as Guanyin Pusa (觀音菩薩), Wenshu Pusa (文殊菩薩, Manjusri), or 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  29  As William Smalley has described, “the Gospel has been clothed in multiple languages and has also been colored by those languages and by the cultures of which they are a part,” and has observed that “one cannot translate into Thai without Buddhist terminology.” William A. Smalley, “Language and Culture in the Development of Bible Society Translation Theory and Practice”, International Bulletin of Missionary Research (Apr, 1995) 62. Lassar likely was encountering the same situation. 30  The full Chinese translation for the Sanskrit “bodhisattva” is Putisaduo 菩提薩埵, most often used in its short form, pusa 菩薩. Martha P.Y. Cheung, An Anthology of Chinese Discourse on Translation, vol. 1 (London: Routledge, 2006) 158.  51 Dizang Pusa (地藏菩薩, Ksitigarbha).31 Although metaphorically the term can be used to describe people with a compassionate or kind heart, such as saying someone has the pusa xinqiang (菩薩心腸, literally “the heart and gut of bodhisattva”, a Chinese figure of speech meaning having the mindset and compassion of bodhisattva), the term as a title is chiefly associated with addressing a Buddhist deity. Lassar uses the term to translate the word “Saint”, as part of the name for the Matthew Gospel - “The Gospel According to Saint Matthew”- as found in the Authorized King James Version (KJV).32 The choice of word is very interesting, as it has a very strong Buddhist overtone, something a modern-day Bible translator will try hard to avoid. Also, since Lassar is translating the word “Saint”, it also gives a good indication that he was translating from the KJV, or at least not from the Griesbach edition of the Greek text, since it doesn’t have the word “saint” for Matthew’s title.33 Another term usage that shows similarly strong Buddhist inclination is fo (佛), the commonly used Chinese term for Buddha, which Lassar also uses to translate the word “saints” later in the text (27:52). The choice of diction is consistent and deliberate, because later on he translates the “holy city” (27:53) as focheng (佛城), making Jerusalem “the city of Buddha”! In Chinese Buddhism, those who manage to escape from the circle of reincarnation are said to chengfo (成佛, “become a Buddha”), so it appears that Lassar wanted to convey the Christian concept of salvation and delivery 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  31  For a brief introduction of Sinicization of the Bodhisattva, see Zhiru Ng, The Making of a Savior Bodhisattva: Dizang in Medieval China (Hawaii: Kuroda Institute, 2007) 7-9. 32  It is believed that the King James Version used by the early missionary translators was the 1769 edition of the Authorized Version, although we will use KJV as the short form through this study. 33  ΕΥΑΓΓΕΛΙΟΝ ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΤΘΑΙΟΝ (“Gospel According to Matthew”). It is possible that Lassar got the idea from the Armenian Bible too, as on the cover of its Matthew Gospel there was a drawing of an elderly Matthew, with the words “S. Mathevs.” written on it, though more research is needed to determine how much Lassar had relied on the Armenian Bible.  52 to the earlier Chinese audience by using salvation language that they were familiar with – which turned out to be Buddhist terms for him.  Other Buddhist terms usage include both chanshi (禪師, the “zen masters”,34 e.g. 2:4, 6:5) and senggang (僧綱, the “monk official”,35 e.g. 21:23) for “chief priests”; miao (廟, the Buddhist temple) for “synagogues” in 4:23; nanjing (喃經, chanting of the Buddhist mantras) for “prayest” in 6:5; xiese (邪色, the kind of devious sexual temptation that is warned against in Buddhist teachings) for “evil (thoughts)” in 9:4; bushi (佈施, the charitable act of donating to the Buddhist monks and temples) is used for “alms (giving)” in 6:1. Sometimes the borrowed Buddhist terms aren’t quite translating the meaning of the source texts correctly enough; for example Lassar chooses shizhai/shisu (食齋/食素) for the two appearances of “fast” in 9:14. Since shizhai or shisu both refer to the diet of not consuming meat practiced by some Buddhists, they are essential to describing a dietary observance quite different from the ritual of the first-century Jews.   On the other hand, some Chinese popular religious and cultural terms, influenced by Taoist and Confucian beliefs,36 are also found in Lassar’s Matthew. One interesting phrase is yuzhi (玉旨), used by Lassar to translate the word “angels”, such as in 1:24. The 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  34  Literally “dhyana master” or “meditation master”. Robert E. Buswell Jr. and Donald S. Lopez Jr., The Princeton Dictionary of Buddhism (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2014) 177. 35  Since the beginning of Ming dynasty (2nd half of 14th century), Seng gang shi 僧綱司 refers to the provincial Office for Monks. Senggang 僧綱 hence refers to the people of the Office, the monk officials. Huai-Chin Nan, Basic Buddhism – Exploring Buddhism and Zen (Maine: Samuel Weiser Inc., 1987) 176.  36  There has been a long-time debate over whether Confucianism should be considered a “religion” or not. While the discussion is way beyond the scope of our present discussion, it should be accepted that various Taoist and Confucian terms had long entered into the religious diction of the Chinese by Lassar’s time. Whether or not Confucianism should be regarded strictly as a “religion”, it should not diminish the fact that that Chinese had used its terms as part of their general religious language.  53 phrase comes from fengyuzhi (奉玉旨), which literally means “edict sent according to the will of the Jade Emperor”. The Jade Emperor, yudi (玉帝), is the highest deity in the Taoist pantheon, hence his messengers were often referred to as the fengyuzhi. The simplified version yuzhi was used by Lassar to translate “the messenger (angel)”, but the problem is that yuzhi refers to the edict, the message, not the messenger. So not only did Lassar use a traditional Chinese religious term, he also used it incorrectly. Also, the word shengren (聖人, “sage” in the Confucian tradition) is used for a “prophet” (e.g. 1:22, 3:3), and dizi (弟子), the word for “students” used in the Confucian Classics, is adopted for “disciples” (26:17, 28:7). Finally, for “virgins” (25:1) Lassar translates it as jienu (節女), a Confucian term which means “chaste woman”. Like “fast” above, the translation here is semantically incorrect, because in Confucianism jienu refered to an honorary woman who was abiding by its strict moral teachings – which could mean remaining a virgin before marriage, or more often a widow who stayed chaste and unmarried even after one’s husband had passed away, until death. The translation jienu is more suggestive of Confucian morals than the original meaning intended.  Lassar’s preference in using Buddhist terminology becomes especially obvious, when we consider how few of these terms are used in Jean Basset’s Matthew, and hence, in Morrison’s too (the topic of Morrison’s reliance on Basset will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 3). The practice was already mostly abandoned by the time Marshman and Lassar completed their version of Matthew, only 3 years later, so either Marshman had strong concerns against using these terms, or by that time the two men had agreed that the heavy Buddhist tone was inappropriate for a translation of the Christian  54 Scriptures. The following table shows how these Buddhist terms quickly disappeared from the subsequent translations of the Chinese Bible: Table 2.1  Use of Buddhist terminology in the early translations of Lassar and Marshman – a comparison among 4 versions.    55  English (KJV) - Matthew Lassar                    – Matthew (1807) Marshman/Lassar – Matthew (1810) Marshman/Lassar – Mark (1811) Marshman/Lassar – John (1813)  “St.” (Matthew) (Book Title) 菩薩 Pusa (“Bodhisattva”) Omitted Omitted Omitted “Chief Priests” (2:4; 21:23) 襌師 Chanshi (“Zen Masters”, 2:4); 僧綱Senggang (“chief monk”, 21:23) 襌師 Chanshi (2:4) or 僧綱 Senggang (21:23)  僧綱 Senggang (Mark 8:31, 11:18) 鐸德37之宗 Duode Zhizong (John 7:32) “Synagogues” (4:23) 廟 Miao (“Buddhist Temples”) 廟 Miao  廟 Miao (Mark 1:21) 會堂 Huitang (John 9:22) “Pray” (6:5) 喃經 Nanjing (“Mantras Chanting”) 誦經 Songjing (“Scriptures Recitation”) 誦經 Songjing (Mark 1:35) 禱 Dao (John 14:16) “Evil (thoughts)” (9:4) 邪色 Xiese (“sexual deviation”) 邪色 Xiese 不軌之意 Bugui Zhiyi (“Bad Intentions”, Mark 7:21) No direct parallel “Fast” (9:14) 食齋/食素 Shizhai/shisu (“vegetarian diet”) 䬩戒 Zhaijie (“refrain from eating”) 食齋/食素 Shizhai/shisu (Mark 2:18) No direct parallel “Saints” (27:52) 佛者 Fozhe (“Buddhas”) 佛者 Fozhe  No direct parallel No direct parallel “Holy City” (4:5; 27:53) 省 Sheng (“province”, 4:5); 佛城 Focheng (“City of Buddha”, 27:53) 佛省 Fosheng (“Buddha province”, 4:5); 真宇 Zhenyu (“Taoist Temple”, 27:53) No direct parallel No direct parallel  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  37  Duode 鐸德 was the term of Jean Basset chosen for “priest”, apparently based on the Latin reading of “sacerdos”. From the big change of chanshi and senggang to duode, it is very obvious that Lassar and Marshman had started making use of the Basset Manuscript by 1813 (see Chapter 4 for a more detailed discussion).  56  As is evident from the comparison, most of the Buddhist terms used by Lassar (1807) can also be found in the Marshman/Lassar version in 1810, including the very exclusively Buddhist-themed ones such as “zen masters”, “chief monk”, “Buddhist temples”, “Buddhas”, etc. An interesting replacement is that of the “city of Buddha” by the “Taoist Temple” 真宇 for 27:53, apparently showing that the translators were still struggling to understand how “Holy City” should be interpreted figuratively. The change from “mantras chanting” to “scriptures recitation” for the word “pray” is minor, still preserving the strong imagery of a Buddhist ritual, since the term songjing was commonly understood as the manner in which the monks would recite their scriptures aloud. Given the little time lapse between the 1810 Matthew and the 1811 Mark, it is not surprising to see that little has changed when it comes to the use of Buddhist terms by Marshman and Mark. Out of our selected examples, the only major change is the replacement of “sexual deviation” by the more general “bad intentions” for the phrase “evil thoughts” in Matthew 9:4 (Mark 7:21). Another notable change is the reversion back to “vegetarian diet” from “refrain from eating” for “fast” (Matthew 9:14; Mark 2:18), making the translation semantically undesirable once again. Zhaijie was not a very common phrase and has already fallen out of use nowadays, but seems to owe its origin to southern China.38 It is hard to understand why it fell out of favor suddenly in the 1811 copy of Mark. Finally, providing a detailed comparison between Lassar’s earlier translation and Marshman/Lassar’s John of 1813 is not easy, because many of the terms used in Matthew do not have a direct parallel in John. Yet from just the 3 examples given above (“chief priests”, “synagogues” and “pray”) one can already notice drastic changes 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  38  According to the authoritative Kangxi Zidian《廣熙字典》(The Kangxi Emperor Dictionary).  57 in diction. From all indications, the abandoning of the Buddhist-themed terms was likely a consequence of the authors consulting the Basset Manuscript (see Chapter 4). 2.2.2.  A QUEST FOR THE SOURCE TEXTS Given the lack of research on this very first Protestant translation of a biblical book, much information about it remains unknown, including the version of the Bible from which Lassar translated his Gospel of Matthew. Although little historical data is available to us, an important source of reference is the account in which Marshman describes, in much detail, the way he and Lassar went about translating the Scriptures in a letter sent to the BFBS in December of 1813.39 Marshman writes that Lassar would be 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  39 “The first step, as I have told you, taken in the Translation, is that of Mr. Lassar’s sitting down at my elbow, (where he sits from month to month and year to year,) and translating from the English, assisted by his knowledge of Armenian. For a long time he and I read over the assigned portion together, prior to his beginning it, till he found it unnecessary; he now therefore only consults me respecting particular words and phrases. In due time follows the correcting verse by verse; when, with Griesbach in my hand, I read over every verse in Chinese, and suggest my doubts relative to the force of particular characters, rejecting some, and suggesting others. When a whole chapter is thus done, which sometimes takes three or four hours, I give him the Chinese, and read Griesbach into English very slowly and distinctly, he then meanwhile keeping his eye on the Chinese Version. It is then copied fairly, and sometimes, (that is, when any doubt remains,) it is examined thus a second, and even a third time. It then goes to press, and here it undergoes a fresh ordeal. A double page being set up with our moveable metal types, I then read it over with another Chinese assistant who is ignorant of English. He suggests such alterations as may seem necessary to rend the language perfectly clear. It is then corrected, and a clean proof given, or two or three, if they are required, to be read by different persons. This done, I sit down alone and read it, comparing with Griesbach again, and occasionally consulting all the helps I have. This is to me the most close examination of all. Here, as I have two Latin Chinese Dictionaries by me, I make it a point to examine them for every character, of the meaning of which I do not feel quite certain; and to assist me herein the more effectually, I have a book by me, wherein I write down the meaning of every character I examine. These, as I have told you, are seldom more than twenty, and sometimes not too many. In reading the original in Griesbach, I deviate a little from my first method. I then read verse by verse; now I read a small portion of the original, perhaps five or six verses at one time, and then the same portion in Chinese, that I may view the force and connexion to greater advantage: this I find profitable. Having written in the margin of the sheet every alteration my mind suggests, and every thing that seems a discrepancy, I then consult Mr. Lassar and the Chinese assistant together, sitting with them till every query be solved and every discrepancy adjusted. This done, another clean proof is given, which, when read, I give to my son John, that he may examine for himself, as his knowledge of the Chinese idiom is perhaps greater than my own, When he has satisfied  58 “sitting down at (his) elbow … and translating from the English, assisted by his knowledge of Armenian”, and after he had revised the translation, he would pass the Chinese copy back to Lassar, and cross-check the translation with him by “read(ing) Griesbach into English”. Hence two to three versions of the Bible might have served as the source and references when the two collaborated in their efforts – the English version which Lassar translated from, the Greek text of Griesbach for proofreading purposes, and likely an Armenian version40 which Lassar used as reference. It is reasonable to speculate that if the English Bible was used as the main source by the two translators in the early 1810s, it probably also served as one of Lassar’s source texts in 1807, since it would explain the consistency of his style and approach to translation. One problem with this 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  himself respecting it, another clean proof is given, and then I give one to my Chinese assistant, to read alone, and one to Mr. Lassar, that they may each point out separately whatever they dislike. When this is done, I compare it with Griesbach for the last time, to see if any thing has escaped us all. I then, in another clean proof, desire the Chinese assistant to add the stops according to his idea of the meaning; these I then examine, and if his idea of the stops agrees with mine, send it to the press. When on the press, a clean proof is brought to me, which I first give to the Chinese assistant, to see if all be right, then to Mr. Lassar, and lastly read it myself, and order it to be struck off. Thus, you see, that, after the Translation has been corrected for the press, we still have, generally, ten or twelve proofs of every sheet before we suffer it to be printed off. You may perhaps think it strange that this should be necessary, and that two or three revisions, at most, do not complete the corrections. It must be remembered, however, that these frequent revisions involve the judgment of four different persons – Mr. Lassar, the Chinese assistant, myself, and my son; each of whom judges independently of the other three: and I am of opinion, that beyond two or three revisions of the same copy (italics added by Marshman), there can be little advantage gained; the same ideas will arise the fourth time which arose the third, or even the second, and thus the need of correction does not appear. But when a corrected (italics added by Marshman) proof is given for examination, the former chain of ideas is broken, and a new object for criticism is presented. I recollect Dr. Beattie’s observing, that he never could judge of his own style till he saw it in print. It is probable, that you yourself have observed a sermon, when printed, appear very differently in certain passages from what it did while in manuscript. By means of this severe scrutiny, I cannot but hope that a faithful Version of the Holy Scriptures, in the Chinese language, will at length, be produced.” Report of the British and Foreign Bible Society, with Extracts of Correspondence, volume 3 (British and Foreign Bible Society: 1815) 471-3.  40  One source stated that “Mr. Johannes Lassar, well known as the assistant to Dr. Marshman in translating from the Armenian into Chinese”, see George Browne, The British and Foreign Bible Society, from its institution in 1804, to the close of its Jubilee in 1854, vol. II (London: BFBS, 1859) 117. If an Armenian Bible was used, it would have been the 1666 edition. But more research is needed to determine the extent to which Lassar had relied on the Armenian Bible.  59 assumption is the question concerning Lassar’s English ability. Marshman at one time praised Lassar for being able to use four languages – Armenian, Portuguese, Hindoostanee, and English – with great fluency, but at another described having problems working with Lassar, because the latter had been brought up in China and “understood scarcely more of English than we of Chinese”.41 Yet with Lassar being employed by the Macao/Portuguese government and the British government for some time before starting to work on the translation of the Scriptures, there is little reason to question his ability to use a number of languages including Portuguese and English. In any case, he would have a much better supply of materials written in English in Serampore.42 Meanwhile, in a letter to the LMS on 25 Nov 1819, Morrison also listed the “English public version” – the Authorized Version – as one of the major sources for his “ascertaining the sense of Scripture”, and that he had “made no departure, in any remarkable degree, from the sense of the English version”, because he believed it would be more satisfactory to the Christians in England that he did not make a new or improved version “immediately and solely from the originals”, and in doing so disregard “old and approved translations”.43 As for the questions of how much he used the Authorized Version, why he deemed it undesirable to translate directly from the originals, and how much he made use of the originals, we will examine further in Chapter 3. For our 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  41  From Marshman’s letters to the BMS on 20 Aug 1806 and 03 April 1817 respectively, quoted in Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 46, n.120. 42  Neither was Portuguese a very prominent language in Macao when it came to interaction between the Chinese and foreigners, in comparison to English. “By the early 1730s, pidgin English had replaced Portuguese as the medium of communication with foreigners, and after that change the three most important languages for all linguists were pidgin English, Cantonese and Mandarin.” Paul Van Dyke, The Canton Trade: Life and Enterprise on the China Coast, 1700-1845 (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2007) 77. 43  Quoted in Marshall Broomhall, Robert Morrison – A Master-Builder, 123-124.  60 purposes here, it is a reasonable speculation that the English version that Lassar used when translating his 1807 Matthew was the Authorized Version as well, since it was the English edition in favor at the time. There is no indication that Lassar knew or used any Greek text before his collaboration with Marshman began, as we should remember that Lassar had never received any seminary training, and got involved in Bible translation mostly for his Chinese ability. So is there any textual evidence to support the theory that the Authorized Version (KJV) was the source text used by Lassar in 1807? This study argues that there is, as some translation features of the 1807 Lassar Matthew do suggest the use of the KJV as the textual basis. This can be illustrated by comparing the Lassar Matthew with the KJV and Griesbach’s Greek text – the version that Marshman claimed they used later: a) “Saint” (book title of Matthew):  - 嘉音遵(口罵)( 口挑)菩薩之語 (Lassar)  (“The Gospel according to the words of Bodhisattva Matthew”) - The Gospel According to Saint Matthew (KJV) - Εὐαγγέλιον κατὰ Ματθαῖον (Griesbach) - 此嘉語由於(口孖)( 口挑)所著 (Marshman/Lassar) (“The Gospel according to Matthew”)  As discussed earlier, the word “Saint” is found in the KJV, which was translated by Lassar as pusa (Bodhisattva). The term was edited out 3 years later by Marshman and Lassar. Since the Marshman/Lassar version still uses a lot of Buddhist terms elsewhere, the reason for the omission of “Saint” was unlikely to do  61 with the rejection of Buddhist terms. On the other hand, as the term was dropped altogether and not replaced by another term, it does suggest that it is a matter related to the source text. It is very possible that with Marshman joining in the translation process, he cross-checked Lassar’s original translation and found a discrepancy with the book title in Griesbach’s, so the word “Saint” was dropped at the end. b) “Fowls” (13:4b): - 他種之時有種落于道鷄來而食之矣 (Lassar) (“When he sowed some seeds fell on the ground and the fowls ate them.”)  - And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up (KJV)  - καὶ ἦλθε τὰ πετεινὰ, καὶ κατέφαγεν αὐτά (Griesbach)  - 他下種之時,其種有落於道,鳥來而食之 (Marshman/Lassar) (“When he sowed, some seeds fell on the ground, and birds came and ate them.”)   The translation of πετεινὰ as ji 鷄 (“fowls”) in 13:4b is unique to Lassar’s Matthew of 1807, and the most logical explanation is that it was the Chinese equivalent to the KJV’s use of the word “fowls”. All subsequent Chinese translations, including the Marshman/Lassar version, use 鳥 (niao, “birds”), which is a far more accurate representation of πετεινὰ.   c) “Giving Alms” (6:1a): - 謹慎第爾佈施不可把爾之器物當人面而施也 (Lassar)  (“Make sure that when you do charity, you don’t give your items in front of men.”)  - Take heed that ye do not do your alms before men, to be seen of them (KJV)   62 - Προσέχετε τὴν δικαιοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς  (Griesbach)  - 提防不可將爾之施物與於人之前 (Marshman/Lassar) (“Watch out that you don’t give your alms before men.”)  The Lassar Matthew is the only translation that translates “alms” as a standalone noun (qiwu 器物), hence interpreting “do … alms” as the giving out of items instead of the action of charity (almsgiving). The Greek text of Griesbach has already used δικαιοσύνην (righteousness) in place of ἐλεηµοσύνη (almsgiving, charity), which was used in the Textus Receptus,44 and from which the King James Version got “do … alms”. It is interesting to note that the Marshman and Lassar version does not quite follow Griesbach, but provides a confusing translation that is still close to Lassar’s version (爾之施物, erzhi shiwu, which reads “your alms”, but can also mean “your giving of the items”). Since all subsequent Chinese versions have the term in Matthew 6:1a translated as “righteousness”, it does suggest the reliance of both the Lassar Matthew and the Marshman/Lassar Matthew on the Authorized Version.  d) “Serpents” (10:16b): - 故爾當為豪杰如龍而無辜如鴿 (Lassar) (“Be as great as dragons and as innocent as doves”) - Be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves (KJV)   - Γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιµοι ὡς οἱ ὄφεις καὶ ἀκέραιοι ὡς αἱ περιστεραί (Griesbach)  - 故爾當為豪杰如龍善而鴿也 (Marshman/Lassar) (“So be as great as dragons and as kind-hearted as doves”) 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  44  Προσέχετε τὴν ἐλεηµοσύνην ὑµῶν µὴ ποιεῖν ἔµπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων πρὸς τὸ θεαθῆναι αὐτοῖς  63 The Matthew by Lassar and by Marshman/Lassar are the only Chinese versions known that translate “snakes” here as “dragons”. Since dragons were a symbol of blessing, authority and royalty in ancient China, Lassar’s translations give the phrase “wise as the snakes” a very favorable twist. In Griesbach two words are used to identify “snake” - ὄφις (a snake, a serpent) and ἔχιδνα (a poisonous snake, like a viper) – but they seem to be quite similar, with the latter just more lethal, as evident in 23:33a when the two are used in a sentence (ὄφεις, γεννήµατα ἐχιδνῶν – “You snakes, you brood of vipers!”). With the KJV translating ὄφις as “serpent” and ἔχιδνα as “viper”, Lassar seemed to try to follow and distinguish between them all the time, always translating “viper” as she 蛇 (“snake” in Chinese), and leaving “serpent” more to the translator’s discretion. For instance when they appear side by side in 23:33 Lassar seemed to be confused, chose to just translate “vipers” and ignored “serpent” altogether (蛇之宗族焉可奔于陰間無量之罪 – “O generation of vipers, how can you escape the everlasting sins of hell?). The Marshman/Lassar version of Matthew 10:16b is just a slight variation of Lassar’s.   e) “Jehovah” (e.g. Genesis 22:14): Some of the most interesting textual evidence that Marshman and Lassar had used the KJV when completing their translation of the Hebrew Bible can be found in the translation of the name of God as yehehua 耶賀華 or yeahua 耶阿華 - a Chinese rendering of “Jehovah”. 45 Though these translations were completed around the late 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  45	    A point interestingly not picked up in Peng Kuo-Wei, “The Influence of the KJV in Protestant Chinese Bible Translation Work”, in David G. Burke, John F. Kutsko, and Philip H. Towner (eds.) The King  64 1810s – about a decade after Lassar’s Matthew and don’t quite reflect the earliest Serampore tradition46 – it is still worth discussion because of its implications. Not only would a variation of it (yehuohua 爺火華) be used in the Bible version circulated by the Taiping Rebels in the 1850-1860s, another variation of it (yehehua耶和華) would be used in the Union Version and remains in common use till this day. Many Chinese sources have incorrectly claimed that the phonetic transcription of “Jehovah” began with Morrison’s 1823 translation,47 but it is actually incorrect according to our research. Zetzsche, on the other hand, has correctly identified Liang Afa, Morrison’s and Milne’s press helper and the first ordained minister in China, as the person who started using the phrase in his own Christian work Quanshi Liangyan勸世良言 (“Good Words for Exhorting the Age”). 48 The beginning page of his book, a commentary on Genesis 3, contains the phrase 3 times already.49  Taiping leader Hong Xiuquan would get acquainted with the Christian faith through reading Laing 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  James Version at 400 – Accessing its Genius as Bible Translation and Its Literary Influence (Atlanta: SBL, 2013) 298.	  46  The Pentateuch and the historical books (up to Esther) were completed and printed by the Serampore Press by 1817. 47  “Hong Xiuquan was first influenced by the Chinese translation of Robert Morrison, and confused by the translation of “Jehovah”. Since he did not know it was a phonetic transcription, and because in Cantonese ye means “father”, so he thought huohua was the name of God.” Yang Sen Fu 楊森富, Zhongguo jidujiao shi《中國基督教史》(The History of the Chinese Christian Church) (Taipei: The Commercial Press, 1984) 181; also Cai Ding Bang 蔡定邦, Shangdi shengming de fanyi「上帝聖名的翻譯」(“The translation of the Holy names of God”) in  The Hong Kong Theological Seminary Newsletter《香港神學院院訊》, No.73 (April – June, 2004) 9.  48  Jost Oliver Zetzsche, The Bible in China, 72-73.  49  Quoted in the original Chinese version of the 1823 edition of Quanshi Liangyan. The passage is on the sinning of the first human, and the name yehuohua was first used:「夫神爺火華(yehuohua)所造田野各獸,其蛇為尤狡,且邪神變為蛇魔對該女人曰,爾必不可食園內知惡樹之果,這一句話,實是神爺火華(yehuohua)所言乎。該女人答蛇魔曰,園內各樹之果,我們可以食之,惟園中一根惡樹之果,神爺火華(yehuohua)乃命我們曰,爾不可捫之,不可食之,不然,爾則必死矣。」  65 Afa’s writing,50 and the phrase was thus made popular by the mass circulation of Christian materials by the rebels.  A comparison of the translation for “Jehovah” among the translations of Marshman/Lassar and Morrison/Milne will clearly show the origin of the translation: Table 2.2     Translation of “Jehovah” in the early Chinese Bibles.  KJV Marshman/Lassar (1817) Morrison/Milne (1822) Taiping Edition (1853) “Jehovah” (Gen 22:14) 耶賀華 Yehehua  神主 Shenzhu  皇上帝 Huang Shangdi  “Jehovah-jireh” (Gen 22:14) 耶阿華以利 Yeahua Yili  神主看見 Shenzhu Kanjian  皇上帝照顧Huang Shangdi  “Jehovah” (Exodus 6:3) 耶賀華 Yehehua  神主者 Shenzhu Zhe  爺賀華 Yehehua  “Jehovah-nissi” (Exodus 17:15) 耶賀華尼西 Yehehua Nixi  耶何尼西 Yehe Nixi  皇上帝乃本旗Huang Shangdi Naibenqi  “Jehovah-shalom” (Judges 6:24) 㖿(口賀)嘩唦(口路)( 口巫) Yehehua Shaluwu  神主之平和Shenzhu zhi Pinghe  ------51  As can be clearly seen, the phonetic transcription of “Jehovah” began with Marshman and Lassar, who mostly translate it as yehehua 耶賀華 , though some variations exist when the term appears as a Hebrew compound word, such as yeahua 耶	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  50  For the influence of Liang Afa on Hong, please see Jonathan D. Spencer, God’s Chinese Son: The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom of Hong Xiuquan (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997) 17-68. 51  This author does not hold a copy of the Taiping edition of Judges.  66 阿華 for the “Jehovah” in “Jehovah-jireh”. Among the three versions, the Marshman and Lassar translation uses phonetic transcriptions throughout, and in the case of “Jehovah-shalom” even used all constructed characters throughout, true to their original preference for southern characteristics (see later). Morrison and Milne mostly translate the tetragrammaton הוהי as shenzhu 神主 – “Lord God”. The word shen is the word used by Basset for “God” in the New Testament, and would remain Morrison’s choice of word still.52 Morrison and Milne seem to prefer meaning translation over transcription, such as translating “Jehovah-jireh” as shenzhu kanjian (“the Lord God sees”), and “Jehovah-shalom” as shenzhu zhi pinghe (“the peace of the Lord God”). The only exception is “Jehovah-nissi”, where the Morrison/Milne version translates as yehe (“Jehovah”) nixi (“nissi”). It is clear from the transcription that Morrison and Milne are also influenced by the English rendering of “Jehovah”, though theirs is a shortened version. Another proof can be seen for “Jehovah-jireh”, where Morrison comments that “the translation of shenzhu kanjian, in its original language, reads yehe ale”.53 In this case Morrison and Milne somehow call English the “original language”, and their transcription is yehe, though they prefer the “Lord God” translation shenzhu. Finally the Taiping Bible, most 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  52  This is quite surprising because the Term Controversy among the Jesuits had began to reach an end by early 1630s, when the “Visitor” André Palmeiro (the Jesuit priest commissioned to visit and inspect Jesuit missions all over the world in early 17th century) ordered the Jesuits in China to use just Tianzhu to signify God, and stopped using either Tian or Shangdi. (Liam Matthew Brockey, Journey to the East – The Jesuit Mission to China, 1579-1724 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2007) 88.) Although the Papal decree that banned the use of Tian or Shangdi only came in 1704, it is very surprising that not only did Basset not use Tianzhu in his translation, but chose the word Shen, who none of his predecessors used to designate God. 53  Notes on Genesis 22:14, Robert Morrison, Shentian Shengshu《神天聖書》(Anglo Chinese College: 1823).  67 believed to be based on the Gützlaff/Medhurst/Bridgman translation,54 uses a hybrid approach, translating “Jehovah” figuratively as huang shandi 皇 上 帝 , “God the Emperor”, as how Hong Xiuquan the god son emperor would address his father, and the second part of the compound word by meaning. Examples of this approach also include huang shangdi zhaogu (“God the Emperor” takes care) for “Jehovah-jireh”, and huang shangdi naibenqi  (“God the Emperor” is the banner) for “Jehovah-nissi”. Marshman/Lassar’s transcription of yehehua 耶賀華 (Exodus 6:3) is also used. Our research shows that the transcription for “Jehovah” began with Marshman and Lassar, not Morrison, and was made popular thanks to the help of Liang Afa and later, the Taiping Rebels (the term was not extensively used in their Bible, but in other writings of leader Hong Xiuquan). As for the reasons why Liang Afa, a close colleague of Morrison and Milne,55 would follow the Serampore tradition rather than Morrison’s and Milne’s, we will need more primary information to answer. Since there is evidence that Liang was not totally impressed by Morrison’s and Milne’s translation (see Chapter 5), it is possible that he made his own translation choice of diction in his own writing.  2.2.3.  PHONETIC CHARACTERS AND SOUTHERN CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS A highly distinctive feature of Lassar’s Matthew (as well as the Marshman/Lassar Matthew and Mark) is the use of phonetic characters, created for the purpose of phonetic 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  54  More discussions on this version later in Chapter 5. 55  J. Barton Starr, “The Legacy of Robert Morrison,” International Bulletin of Missionary Research, vol.22, no.2 (1998) 75.  68 transcription to mimic the sound of a particular word, phrase, or term. Elijah Bridgman notices that the technique is frequently used in the writing of the Cantonese language,56 in which these words only provide the sound, but have no meaning in themselves.57 A regular practice is to add a smaller version of the Chinese character kou 口 (means “mouth”, which has the symbolic meaning of “verbally” here) to the left-hand side of another Chinese character that sounds the same or close to the intended pronunciation of the word intended. Since the newly formed character has no meaning in itself, it thus becomes clear to the readers that it is used for phonetic expression only. For example, Lassar translates Matthew as (口罵)( 口挑), which is affixing 口 kou to 罵 ma (pronounces as “ma”, but means “scolding”) and to 挑 tiao (pronounces as “tiao”, but means “picking” or “lifting”). Hence the words (口罵)( 口挑) are meant to be understood as the name of some place or person that sounds like ma tiao – “Matthew” in this case.58 In their 1810 version of Matthew, Marshman and Lassar decided to use zi tiao (口孖)( 口挑) instead of ma tiao (口罵)( 口挑). (口孖) is another phonetic character that was created by adding 口 to 孖  (also pronounces as ma, but in Cantonese only, meaning “twins” or “two”). Understandably, the choice of the phonetically similar but etymologically different word 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  56  The debate over whether one should consider Cantonese a “language” or “a dialect” has a long history, which has intensified in the recent years because of the political struggle between Mainland China and the HKSAR (Hong Kong Special Administration Region). 57  “(The method makes) use of well-known characters, slightly changed to express new local phrases; in all such cases, regard is had only to the sound of the characters; while the addition, usually that of hau 口 (a mouth) to the left side, indicates that the character is changed. For instance, the three characters 喊𠾴唥 used to express the sound of the word hampaláng (all), having no meaning in themselves when used in this collocation, their united sound being alone attended to and recognized.” Elijah Bridgman, A Chinese chrestomathy in the Canton dialect (Macao: S. W. Williams, 1841) ii. 58  The transliteration actually works better in Cantonese, which reads ma til. Lassar, a native of Macao, would know the Canton Dialect best. Morrison would even question if Lassar and Marshman knew the Court Dialect (Mandarin) at all.   69 is to avoid the negative connotation associated with (口罵), since ma 罵 does mean scolding and arguing by itself. When the terms are frequently used and more familiar, sometimes the phonetic kou 口 part can be omitted.59 It also confirms that Marshman and Lassar were a lot more familiar with the Cantonese dialect, because the character 孖 only has the ma pronunciation in the Canton Dialect, but it is zi in Mandarin or the Court dialect (hence the pinyin system of transcription reads “zitiao”, because it is based on Mandarin). So for the replacement of (口罵) by (口孖), the phonetic transcription can only work when pronounced in Cantonese.60  Samuel William Wells has also discussed in his 1856 work the Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect 61  this usage of invented Chinese characters to denote otherwise unwritten words or sounds by those who used the Canton dialect. Wells noticed that the Cantonese dialect had a lot of unwritten sounds or colloquial words that were simply omitted by the local speakers in writing, because they were either not writable or, their inclusion would not be deemed favorably by the well educated. The situation matches exactly what Charles Ferguson would term as “diglossia”, in which the primarily spoken but mostly unwritten Cantonese served as the “low” language, while “high” classical Chinese was reserved for formal, non-spoken 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  59  Bridgman gives the example of 美士 mi sz’ (“mister”) and 先士 sin sz’ (“cents”), which do not use the kou formula but are still recognized as foreign, borrowed terms. 60  Later on Morrison would criticize the Serampore translators for not understanding the Court Dialect – the more official dialect used in the North. A more in-depth discussion is given in Chapter 4. 61  Samuel William Wells, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect《英華分韻撮要》(Canton: The Chinese Repository Office, 1856).  70 purposes.62 Wells cited an earlier Cantonese pronunciation work by some Chinese authors, the Jianghu Chedu Fenyun Cuoyao Heji (江湖尺牘分韻撮要合集, A Concise Collection of Pronunciation and Tones used in Society),63 claiming that the compilers intentionally left out some colloquial words because of “knowing no authorized characters by which to express (them), nor having any tabular system of initials and finals in which to insert them so that the student could find them.”64 Although from the book’s introduction the earliest version of this work appeared during the late reign of the Qianlong Emperor in 1782, two later editions (1817 and 1825) still saw the practice of omitting “unaccepted” words continued - a time which overlapped with the first period of the Protestant Chinese Bible translation activities. Wells notes that this practice of word omission had been especially frustrating for foreigners who were trying to learn the dialect, and was not appreciated by all native speakers either. Some Chinese who were “partly educated persons in letters” – likely referring to the non-gentry elites who possessed at least some level of literacy65 – would often try to choose a familiar character 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  62  Ferguson’s much-cited definition reads: “Diglossia is a relatively stable language situation in which, in addition to the primary dialects of the language (which may include a standard or regional standards), there is a very divergent, highly codified (often grammatically more complex) superposed variety, the vehicle of a large and respected body of written literature, either of an earlier period or in another speech community, which is learned largely by formal education and is used for most written and formal spoken purposes but is not used by any section of the community for ordinary conversation.” in C. A. Ferguson, “Diglossia”, Word 15 (1959), 325-340.  63 Wells writes its Romanized form as Kong-u ch ‘ik-tuk, Fan-wan ts ‘ut-iu hop tsap, which he abbreviates as “Fan Wan”. 64  Samuel William Wells, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect《英華分韻撮要》(Canton: The Chinese Repository Office, 1856) xii. 65  Matthew Miller believes that the greater rates of education together with a growth in the commercial printing industry since the late Ming period had resulted in a larger population of literate people who were outside of the gentry class (Matthew Miller, “Ming Dynasty Vernacular Fiction and Hu Shi’s Literary Revolution”, Columbia East Asia Review (2012), 41). According to Benjamin Elman, the number of successful provincial candidates all over China had also ballooned from 30,000 in 1400 to  71 that sounded similar to represent one of those colloquial words or sounds. In order to identify those special words, they would create them by affixing the character kou (口) or ren (人) to a phonetically-similar character.66 Although Wells’ observation is very similar to the one by Bridgman that we have already mentioned, his more in-depth analysis provides us with more revealing data that are relevant to our discussion. First of all, he relates the frequent use of the kou- or ren- “affixed” characters to represent certain sets of colloquial words more common among the less-educated users of the Cantonese dialect, because a lot of their daily diction was not representable by the accepted characters; secondly by the 1820s, the practice was still limited to non-official or less serious writings, because it was looked down upon by the higher educated.   It is difficult to trace the beginning of the use of phonetic Chinese characters in the writing of the Canton dialect, but as with the emergence of other forms of vernacular Chinese writings in the past, it probably had to do with a need for verbal rendering or performance (see Section 5). One of the earliest of such works was Yue Ou (粵謳, “Cantonese Songs”), a collection of popular Cantonese songs sung by street performers and prostitutes, compiled by Zhao Zi Yong in 1828. Various words uniquely used to represent the Cantonese diction had already been used, such as 佢 (“him/her”), 唉 (an 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  500,000 by 1700, but the passing rate had actually dropped from 6.4% in 1601 to around 1.5% in the Late Qing period. Both sets of figures show that the literacy level of the general population outside of the Literati class must have greatly increased by late Qing. See Benjamin Elman, “Political, Social and Cultural Reproduction via Civil Service Examination in Late Imperial China,” The Journal of Asiatic Studies, 50.1 (1991) 14. In general, some estimates put the literacy in Late Qing at around one in fifty of the rural population, though the proportion would be much larger among the urban population. See John T. P. Lai, Negotiating Religious Gaps – The Enterprise of Translation Christian Tracts by Protestant Missionaries in Nineteenth-Century China, 21-22. 66  It was later translated by Cecil Clementi, eventual Hong Kong Governor, as Cantonese Love-Songs in 1904 (Oxford: Clarendon Press).  72 exclamation sound), 噤 (“like this”), 係 (“is/are”).67 Still, since the setting and topics are all locally Chinese, most of the characters used in Yue Ou were already the more “accepted” ones among them. What really encouraged the proliferating use of these phonetic Chinese characters was the need to represent the pronunciation of a foreign language like English, especially by the mid-19th century. Looking for a quick way to learn to use a foreign language without having to learn its grammar or alphabet, the Chinese began to create and put together different Chinese characters to mimic the pronunciation of a foreign language. The result was what is commonly referred to as pidgin English,68 which allowed the locals a way to interact with the foreigners without actually learning their languages. Some years later William Hunter describes the situation as follows: 69 Pegeon-English is the well-known name given to that unique language through the medium of which business was transacted and all intercourse exclusively carried on between the ‘Western Ocean’ foreigners and Canton Chinese …Foreigners came to Canton for a limited period, and would not or could not apply themselves to the study of so difficult a language as the Chinese, of which even a sufficiency for commonplace purposes was not easy to acquire … the shrewd Chinaman succeeded in supplying this absence of the knowledge of his own language by cleverly making himself familiar 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  67  A list of these characters can be seen in Don Snow, Cantonese as Written Language: The Growth of a Written Chinese Vernacular (Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press, 2004) 49. 68  The word Pidgin was also known as “pigeon” originally, which came from some very poor translation of “business” by some Chinese locals. Hence “business English” became “pigeon English” or “pidgin English”. Some authors call it “CCP”, China Coast Pidgin (Umberto Ansaldo, Stephen Matthews, and Geoff Smith, “Chinese Coast Pidgin” in Anasaldo Umberto (ed.), Pidgins and Creoles in Asia (Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2012) 62). Since the acronym is commonly used for the “Chinese Communist Party” nowadays, it will not be used in this work. 69  William Hunter, The ‘Fan Kwae’ at Canton before treaty days, 1825-1844 by an old resident (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, & Co., 1882) 60-61.  73 with sounds of foreign words, and conforming them to his own monosyllabic mode of expression, at the same time using simple Chinese words to express their meaning. He thus created a language, as it may be called, deprived of syntax, without the logic of speech, and reduced to its most simple elements. It took firm root, became the conventional medium of intercourse in respect to transactions of enormous value and magnitude, and exists in all its vigour and quaintness to this day.   To enable the locals to speak this kind of in-between “language” - something Morrison termed as “half English, half Chinese”70 – pidgin phrasebooks were published as learning tools and quick references. The earliest pidgin phrasebooks extant today were mainly on Chinese pidgin Portuguese (especially used in Macau) or Chinese pidgin English (mainly used in Canton plus elsewhere), and most of them based on the Cantonese dialect, in which many of the phonetic characters were used. Writers such as Uchida Keiichi71, K. Bolton72, and Zhou Zhen73 have identified a few of these pidgin works published since the early 19th century, which included a number of shorter phrasebooks such as the aomen fanyu zazi quanben 《澳門番語雜字全本》 (“A glossary of foreign vocabularies used in Macau”) and the various editions of the hongmao tongyong fanyu《紅毛通用番話》 (“Common language used by the Red 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  70  Samuel William Wells, Tonic Dictionary of the Chinese Language in the Canton Dialect《英華分韻撮要》(Canton: The Chinese Repository Office, 1856) xii. 71  Uchida Keiichi, “Pidgin English as a phenomenon of language of cultural interactions,” Publication of Journal of East Asian Cultural Interaction (東アジア文化交涉研究), No.2,197-207. 72  Kingsley Bolton, Chinese Englishes: A Sociolinguistic History, 1637-1949, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003) 169-172. 73  Zhou Zhen He 周振鶴, Yiyan shuyu (revised edition)《逸言殊語》(增訂本),Shanghai People’s Press 上海人民出版社 (2008) 152-167.   74 Hairs”), 74  designed to provide commonly used and simple phrases for daily communication purposes. It is difficult to assert how early these works began to circulate, but since they were already mentioned in the two articles published by Samuel William Wells in 1836-7, they must have been in use even earlier. These were followed by two longer works – the huaying tongyu《華英通語》 (“The Chinese-English Common Phrases”) of 1855,75 and the massive 6 volumes 1862 yingyu jiquan《英語集全》 (“A Collection of English phrases”) by Tong King-Sing, a graduate of the Anglo-Chinese College in Hong Kong, who later emerged as a major figure of reform in the dying days of the Dynasty.76 The rise of the Chinese pidgin coinciding with an extensive use of the phonetic characters should be considered a logical development. That was because these pidgin works were intended for practical everyday use in places like Canton and Macau and not for literary appreciation, hence the sentences chosen as illustrations must be colloquial. Given that many Cantonese words and sounds were not writable, phonetic characters had to be created and used to present the Cantonese sentences as closely as they would sound in a conversation. In addition, given that languages like English and Portuguese are sound-based and the Chinese language is non-alphabetic, there is a lack of Chinese characters which can present all the sounds needed to mimic the complicated western language pronunciation. As a result, the increase in use of phonetic characters and in the 	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  	  74  Uchida Keiichi, “Pidgin English as a phenomenon of language of cultural interactions,” Publication of Journal of East Asian Cultural Interaction (東アジア文化交涉研究), No.2, 197-207. 75  According to Akihumi Yahanashi there are 4 versions of huaying tongyu《華英通語》. The one that this author uses is a later edition purchased by Fukuhsi in San Francisco in 1860, and which was later brought back to Japan.  76  Carl T. Smith, Chinese Christians – Elites, Middlemen, and the Chu