Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T04:06:41.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Translating the ancestors: S. I. J. Schereschewsky's 1875 Chinese version of Genesis1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2009

Irene Eber
Irene Eber
Affiliation:
Truman Research Institute, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Partial and complete Bible translations into classical Chinese existed well before Protestant missionaries actually began to work actively among the Chinese. Translation work accelerated once missionaries gained a foothold in the newly opened treaty ports after 1842, and the entire Bible or portions of it were translated into Fuzhou, Amoy, Canton, Hakka, Suzhou, Ningbo and Shanghai dialects. S. I. J. Schereschewsky's (1831–1906) translation of the Old Testament (OT) into the northern vernacular in 1875 opened a new chapter. His translation was accessible to larger numbers of people and, in contrast to the OT in classical Chinese, was readily understood when read to the illiterate. Moreover, unlike previous translations, it was prepared entirely from the Hebrew original.

The purpose of this essay is to examine some of Schereschewsky's views on translating and several of the techniques which he employed in rendering into Chinese the Book of Genesis. My basic assumption is that translation is an interpretative activity. When a text is transposed from one language into another, changes are introduced that are consonant with the receiving languages and culture. Translation is affected by interpretations from within the receptor tradition which, in turn, makes possible the acceptance of the translation and the ideas which it contains. Thus the Old (as well as the New) Testament translations represented one of the initial steps in the signification of Protestant Christianity.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 219 - 233
Copyright
Copyright © School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 For a fairly comprehensive listing of translations, see Spillett, Hubert W. (comp.), A Catalogue of scriptures in the languages of China and the Republic of China (British and Foreign Bible Society, 1975). See also Wylie, Alexander, Catalogue of theChinese Imperial Maritime Customs Collection at the United States International Exhibition. Philadelphia 1876 (Shanghai: Statistical Department of the Inspectorate General of Customs, 1876)Google Scholar; Appendix, ‘Catalogue of publications by Protestant missionaries in China’. And Hykes, H. R., Translations of the scriptures into the languages of China and her dependencies, tabulated to December 31, 1915 (New York: American Bible Society, 1916, iv, 1–llGoogle Scholar), by courtesy of the Burke Library of the Union Theological Seminary in the City of New York.

3 John Fairbank notes the importance of the Chinese collaborators in the sinification process, in addition tothe Chinese vocabulary that came to be used for religious terms. Fairbank, John K., ‘Introduction’, in Barnett, Suzanne W., and Fairbank, J. K.(ed.), Christianity in China: early Protestant missionary writings (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1985), 7–9Google Scholar.

4 The Union version continues to be used widely and has not been replaced by other versions in the Protestantchurches of the People's Republic. See Strandenaes, Thor, Principles of Chinese Bible translation (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1987), p. 15n.Google ScholarA recent effort by the Bible Societies of Taiwan andHong Kong, Shenjing: xiandai Zhongwen yiben (The Holy Bible: today's Chinese version), Hong Kong Bible Society (1975), although widely used, has not replaced the Union version. This recent translation however, differs, greatly from the Union version. For what we know of the process whereby Schereschewsky arrived at his final version of his translation of Genesis, see n. 50 belowGoogle Scholar.

5 Muller, James A., Apostle of China: Samuel Isaac Joseph Schereschewsky 1831–1906 (New York: Morehouse Publishing Co., 1937), is a biographical account which emphasizes his missionary careerGoogle Scholar. Most of the documentary sources used by Muller, including Muller's correspondence with a number of valuable informants, are now housed at the Archives of the Episcopal Church in Austin, Texas. I have resorted to the archival collection rather than to Muller's account. 1 would like to express my deep appreciation to Dr. V. Nelle Bellamy, Eleanor Hearn and the staff of the Archive for their generous help and hospitality.

6 Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (hereafter DFMS), China Records, 1835–1951, RG64–185, Caroline Schereschewsky's biographical statement which had been in possession of Sister Emily Faith and was forwarded to J. A. Muller, MS, 5 pp. In the above 1 have enlarged somewhat on C. S.'s bare facts.

7 Among the Russian, Hebrew, , and Yiddish, literature on the subject of the Jewish Enlightenment Azriel Shochat, Mosad Harabanut Mita'am, Parasha Bama'avak-Hatarbut bein Haredim levein Maskilim (The ‘Crown Rabbinate’ in Russia, a chapter in thecultural struggle between orthodox Jews and ‘maskilim’) (Haifa: University of Haifa, 1975) details the arguments on both the orthodox and enlighteners'sideGoogle Scholar. Stanislawski, Michael, Tsar Nicholas I and the Jews: the transformation of Jewish society in Russia, 1825–1855 (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1983) explores government policies and their effects on Jewish lifeGoogle Scholar.

8 Neither Caroline Schereschewsky's written statement, DFMS, RG64–85, nor Muller's notes on his talk with her, DFMS, RG64–185, 5 January 1929, mention the Zhitomir seminary. The sole evidence is found in DFMS, RG64–185, letter from James A. Kelso, President, Western Theological Seminary, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to Muller, 16 December 1933. Kelso wrote that according to Schereschewsky's registration, he studied at the Zhitomir Rabbinical Seminary.

9 NT translations were prepared by the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews. Their intensive proselytizing activities began after 1818 in lands under Russian control. The translation of the Hebrew NT was completed in 1817, and the Yiddish in 1821. Gidney, William T., The history of the London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews from 1809 to 1908 (London: London Society for Promoting Christianity, 1908), 55–6. Although I have found no evidence in the yearly published reports of the London Society about active missionaries in Zhitomir, from their stations in Warsaw, Lublin, and Kalish the missionaries covered considerable distances to other towns. However, the NT need not have been brought to Zhitomir by missionaries. New and Old Testaments were liberally distributed throughout the areas of the missionaries’ activities and pupils could have easily brought copies to the seminary from elsewhereGoogle Scholar.

10 London Society for Promoting Christianity Amongst the Jews, 19th Report, 1827, 36.

11 DFMS, RG64–28, Schereschewsky letter to the Reverend S. D. Denison, 21 July 1865. For his translation of the OT, Schereschewsky mentions consulting works by De Wette, Rosenmuller, Eichhorn, and Genesius. See Rogerson, John W., Old Testament criticism in the early 19th century: Englandand Germany (London: Anchor Press, 1984)for a discussion of these authors and the German scholars’ controversiesGoogle Scholar.

12 [McKim, Bishop and Partridge, Bishop],‘How the Bible has been translated for the millions of China’, Spirit of Missions, 68, no. 4 (April 1903), 233Google Scholar.

13 DFMS, RG64–29, John R. Hykes, (?), 1903 (?).

14 Sanneh, Lamin, Translating the Message: the Missionary impact on culture (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1990), 170, 205Google Scholar.

15 ‘Consecration of the Missionary Bishop of Shanghai’, Spirit of Missions, 42 (12 1877), 672Google Scholar.

16 ibid, 670, 673.

17 DFMS, RG64–30, Mrs. Schereschewsky letter to the Reverend S. D. Denison, 21 January 1876.

18 American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (hereafter ABCFM), vol. 302. North China Mission, 1860–1871, ‘Letters and papers addressed to the Board ’, vol. I, Houghton Library, Harvard University. Henry Blodget letter to the Reverend R. Anderson, 4 November 1861, Tianjin, MS. 127. By permission of the Houghton Library, Harvard University, and the United Church Board for World Ministries.

19 ABCFM, ibid., Henry Blodget letter to the Reverend N. L. Clark, 12 October 1867, Peking, MS. 186.

20 DFMS, RG64–29, Schereschewsky letter to Dr. Langford, 18 May 1895.

21 DFMS, RG64–185. Sister Emily Faith, Deaconess, Sisters of the Transfiguration, St. Lioba's Convent, Wuhu, letter to Muller, 19 December 1933. She wrote that Max Muller ranked Schereschewsky as one of the six most learned Orientalists in the world.

22 Fairbank, , ‘Introduction’, Christianity in China, 7Google Scholar.

23 The committee was formed in 1864 and consisted of three Americans, Henry Blodget, W.A. P. Martin and Schereschewsky, and two Englishmen, Joseph Edkins and John Burdon.

24 ABCFM, North China Mission, vol. I. Blodget, Henry, ‘Occasional notes’,20 March 1867, MS 181Google Scholar.

25 DFMS, RG64–30, Mrs. Schereschewsky letter to ?, 27 December 1871.

26 ABCFM, North China Mission, vol. I, Blodget, Henry letter to ?, 28 December 1861, Tianjin, MS 129, and letter to the Reverend Anderson, R., 29 January 1863, Peking, MS 147Google Scholar.

27 Broomhall, Marshall, The Bible in China (London: China Inland Mission, 1934), 83–4Google Scholar.

28 Jiuyue quanshu (Peking, 1875)Google Scholar. The full English title is: The Old Testament in the Mandarin colloquial. Translated from the Hebrew by the Reverend Schereschewsky, J. I.S., D.D. of the American Episcopal Mission, and printed for the American Bible Society at the press of the ABCFM, Peking, China, 1875Google Scholar.

29 DFMS, RG64–29. ‘Translation of the scriptures into Chinese’. Also, Bible Society Record, April 1890.

30 DFMS, RG64–28, Schereschewsky, letter to Denison, S. D., 21 July 1865Google Scholar.

31 DFMS, RG64–29, 4–5, ‘The Bible, Prayer Book, and terms in our mission ’, addressed to the House of Bishops. Pamphlet. Schereschewsky was referring to the Morrison translation and the Bridgman and Culbertson OT.

32 ‘Shengjing yi guanhuaben gaocheng (Translation of the Bible into guanhua is completed)’, Jiaohui xinbao, 14, (13 July 1872), 225Google Scholar. ‘Missionary News’, The Chinese Recorder, 5, no. 4 (August 1874), 223–4Google Scholar. Mandarin and guanhua were synonymous before 1911. When the latter term was abolished, Mandarin continued to be used for guoyu, as the Peking dialect was referred to before 1949. In both cases the spoken northern Chinese language is meant. See Strandenaes, Principles of Chinese Bible translation, 15n.

33 DFMS, RG64–29, Graves, Frederick R. letter to Wood, John H., 30 June 1937Google Scholar. Although Bible sales generally had sharply increased in the second decade of the twentieth century, Mandarin Bibles (that is, northern vernacular Bibles) outstripped all others. Most of the OTs sold must have been in Schereschewsky's translation. See Stauffer, Milton T. (ed.), The Christian occupation of China (Shanghai: China Continuation Committee, 1922), 453Google Scholar.

34 How to translate the Holy Spirit was equally vexing. But since this is a NT problem it will not be discussed here. For a summary of the ‘Term Question’ see, Spelman, Douglas G., ‘Christianity in Chinese: the Protestant Term Question’, Papers on China, vol. 22A (May 1969), 25–52Google Scholar.

35 For example, Helm, B., ‘Shen and Shang-Ti’, The Chinese Recorder, 7, no. 6 (December 1876), 436–42Google Scholar, and George, SirStaunton, Thomas, An inquiry into the proper mode of rendering the word ‘God ’in translating the sacredscriptures into the Chinese language... (London: Lionel Booth, 1849), 5–6, 34Google Scholar.

36 Legge, James, The notions of the Chinese concerning God and spirits: with an examination of the defence of an essay, on the proper rendering of the words Elohim and Theos, into the Chinese language, by William J. Boone, D.D (Hong Kong: printed at the ‘Hong Kong Register’ Office, 1832), 7–64. (Ch'eng Wen reprint, 1971.)Google Scholar

37 Staunton, , An inquiry, 18Google Scholar.

38 The Chinese Recorder, 7, no. 4 (August 1876), 294–7.

39 DFMS, RG64–28, Schereschewsky, letter to Denison, S. D., 21 July 1865Google Scholar.

40 ‘The Bible, prayer book and terms’, 9–11Google Scholar, and ‘Terminology in the China Mission’, The Churclxman, 57, no.6 (14 January 1888), 34–5Google Scholar.

41 Ji, Shi, 28, in shi, Ershiwu (Twenty-five histories), (Kaiming edition, 1934), vol. I, 115Google Scholar.

42 Blodget, Henry, The use of T'ien Chu for God in Chinese (Shanghai: American Presbyterian Mission Press, 1893), 1, 4, 10, 20. Pamphlet, by courtesy of the Burke Library of the Union Theological Seminary in the City of New YorkGoogle Scholar.

43 DFMS, RG64–29, letter from Hykes, John R. to Fox, John, 29 August 1903Google Scholar.

44 ‘Terminology in the China Mission’, 60–2Google Scholar.

45 I am using the Jiuyue Quanshu, 1875 edition, although I will sometimes refer to the Jiu xinyue Shangjing (The Old and New Testament Holy Scriptures), 1899 revised edition as well. For the Hebrew I am using the standard Masoretic textGoogle Scholar.

46 See Rosenbaum, M. and Silbermann, A. M. (tr.), Pentateuch with Targum Onkelos. Haphtaroth and Rashi's Commentary (New York: Hebrew Publishing Co., n.d., vol. I, 3–4Google Scholar.) (Hereafter Rashi.) Rashi (Solomon Yitzhaki ben Isaac, 1040–1105) was a French rabbinic scholar whose authoritative commentary on the Pentateuch has been universally studied for centuries past. Schereschewsky apparently often consulted Rashi both for translating the text and for the appended notes.

47 Compare, for example, the Lun yu, 6:25, Yue zhi yi li,‘ bind oneself with li’.

48 Rashi, 115 explains goi with le’um, or nation.

49 The 1899 revision corrects sons (zi) to read clan (zu) which is, however, also not in keeping with the Hebrew. The 1899 reading is retained in the Union version.

50 DFMS, RG64–30, Mrs. Schereschewsky, letter to the Reverend Denison, S. D., 22 August 1870, and 25 October 1870. The tragic incident involving the Catholic mission in Tianjin and the subsequent massacre in June 1870 had apparently led to considerable tension in the capital, and relations between Chinese and foreigners were severed. By 1870, Schereschewsky was well along in the translation of the entire OT. Genesis, which had been almost completed in 1864, as he wrote in a letter to Denison, 14 October 1864, DFMS, RG64–28, was published separately 1866. I was not able to examine this version. The 1872 version, Chuang Shi ji (Beijing: Meihua shu guan shuvin, 1872), in the ABCFM collection of the Harvard-Yenching Library which I was able to examine is identical with the Genesis published in the complete OT in 1875. Therefore, Schereschewsky made no revisions between 1872 and 1875. Unless the 1866 Genesis is compared with the later versions one cannot know deflnitely if he decided to revise certain terms after 1870. However, I tend to think that he did not make changes between 1870 and 1872, being eager forge ahead with the entire OT and given the relative calm of the capital in the months following the Tianjin massacreGoogle Scholar.

51 Rashi, 67.

52 See Spillett, , A catalogue of scriptures, 21. Part 2 of the Bridgman and Culberton version was published in 1861, the other parts in 1863. I have consulted the 1865 edition, Jiuyue quan shu (The Old Testament) (Shanghai: Meihua), 3 vols., in the ABCFM collection at the Harvard-Yenching LibraryGoogle Scholar.

53 For example, Morrison, Robert, Chuangshi lidai chuan (Genesis), 1832, in the ABCFM collection at the Harvard-Yenching LibraryGoogle Scholar.

54 Most of the notes were retained in the 1899 revised version and in some instances new notes were added, orbriefer ones expanded. The Union version reduced the number of notes.

55 Midrashic literature refers to a large collection of writings dealing with interpretation, and it includesa rich body of imaginative works.

56 The English wording is according to the Masoretic text which is not faithful to the Hebrew. However, because of the terse and obscure nature of this sentence, a faithful translation is practically impossible. For the story, see Rashi, 20–1. I thank Uri Melammed for pointing out that Lemech's statement is probably a line from a long poem, perhaps a dirge, which he addressed to his two wives.

57 The note is based on Rashi, 153.

58 Rashi, 236.

59 ibid., 20.

60 Wright, Arthur F., ‘The Chinese language and foreign ideas’ in Wright, Arthur F. (ed.), Studies in Chinese thought, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), 296Google Scholar.