No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 February 2020
The influences of Chinese traditional culture, especially the traditional Three Teachings and folk religion, on the Mandarin Union Version of the Chinese Bible (first edition, 1919) and the resulting complications are explicit in some contexts but implicit and subtle in other contexts. Some influences are helpful for Chinese people's proper understanding of biblical truth and theology in a Chinese context, but other influences can be misleading. In this paper, I will examine three translated Chinese phrases in the Mandarin Union Version that show evidence of Ruist influences: (1) “xūxīn de rén” “虛心的人”, in Matthew 5:3, (2) “tiānguó shì nǔlì jìnrù de﹐nǔlì de rén jiù dézháole” “天國是努力進入的﹐努力的人就得著了”, Matthew 11:12, and (3) “lǎoliàn” “老練”in Romans 5:4. Ruist influences is explicit in the first two cases but implicit in the third case, I will first analyze the verses and argue that they reflect the dominant Ruist ideology of moral self-cultivation instead of the biblical vision of transformation by “gracious moral cultivation”. Then I will demonstrate how Chinese readers might respond based on the context of each verse: Some Chinese readers might detect the inconsistenices between the Ruist emphasis on moral self-cultivation and a more general biblical theology, especially in an intertextual context of other Bible passages that explicitly teach the total depravity of human beings (e.g. Romans), as well as reconciliation and redemption by the free gift of Christ's grace for salvation and sanctification (e.g. Ephesians). Other Chinese readers might be misled by Ruist suggestions that they pursue sanctification and transformation only by means of moral self-cultivation that relies solely on their willpower. I will conclude by arguing how mistranslating and misinterpreting these verses can cause possible complications, especially negatively masking behaviour, in the personal and interpersonal spiritual transformation and ecclesiological development among Chinese Christians.
1 Hall, D. L., ‘To Be or Not to Be: The Postmodern Self and the Wu-Forms of Taoism’ in Ames, R. T., Dissanayake, W., and Kasulis, T. P. (eds.) Self as Person in Asian Theory and Practice (Albany, NY, 1994), p. 214Google Scholar. See also Yang, K. 楊國樞, ‘Zhōngguórén yǔ Zìrán, Tārén, Zìwǒ de Guānxì (中國人與自然、他人、自我的關係) [The Relationships between Chinese Person and Nature, Others, and Self]’ in Wen, C. 文崇一 and Xiao, X. 蕭新煌 (eds.) Zhōngguó Rén: Guānniàn yǔ Xíngwéi (中國人：觀念與行為) [Chinese People: Concept and behaviour] (Taipei, 1988), pp. 9–23Google Scholar; Kitayama, S., ‘Collective Construction of the Self and Social Relationships: A Rejoinder and Some Extensions’ Child Development 71/5 (2000), pp. 1143–1146CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed. S. M. Andersen and S. Chen, ‘The Relational Self: An Interpersonal Social-Cognitive Theory’, Psychological Review 109/4 (2002), p. 637. Shi, Y. 施媛媛, ‘Zhōngxīfāng Zìwǒ Chāyì Sùyuán (中西方自我差異溯源) (The Origin of the East-West Differences in Self)’ Xīnlǐxué Jìnzhǎn (心理學進展) (Advances in Psychology) 3/6 (2013), pp. 353, 358Google Scholar.
2 In this paper, Ruist/Confucianist, Ruism/Confucianism, Ruification/Confucianisation, and Ru/Confucian are interchangeable in general usage. However, ‘Confucianist’ and related terms might imply worshipping the person of the Sage, Master Kong (Confucius), which would lead to other kinds of distortions and conflicts with biblical theology. Therefore in the contemporary, or ‘post-traditional’, context where Ru-inspired Chinese no longer worship Confucius, the term Ruist/Ruism, rather than Confucian/Confucianism, serves as a more helpful and pertinent description.
3 Lo, P. W. K., ‘Human Dignity — A Theological and Confucian Discussion’ Dialog 48/2 (2009), p. 168CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Xiè, W. 謝文郁 ‘Zǒuchū Xiūshēnzhīdào de Mígōng: Jīdūjiāo duì Rújiā de Huíyīng (走出修身之道的迷宮：基督教對儒家的回應) [Walking Out of the Labyrinth of Self-Cultivation: Christian Response to Ruists]’ Wénhuà Zhōngguó (文化中國) (Cultural China) 4/4 (1997), p. 55Google Scholar.
4 Tu Weiming (1985:19) refers to the Three Teachings in East Asia discussed in this context as the ‘Mencian line of Confucianism, the Chuang Tzu [莊子 Zhuāngzi (ca. 369-286 bce)] tradition of Taoism [(Daoism)], and the Ch'an (Zen) [chán 禪] interpretation of Buddhism’. See Tu, W., Confucian Thought: Selfhood as Creative Transformation (Albany, NY, 1985), p. 19Google Scholar.
5 V. Groossaert, ‘The Concept of Religion in China and the West’ Diogenes 52/1 (2005), p. 16.
6 Ruification in the context of Chinese Protestant Christians means that the believer lives more in a Ruist way than in a Christian way. For example, the sermons delievered focus more on moral teachings and admontition. Various forms of Ruism even influenced the developments of Chinese Buddhism {H. Yang 楊惠南, ‘ “Rénjiān Fójiào” de Jīngdiǎn Quánshì ─ Shì “Yuán Rú Rù Fó” huòshì Huíguī Yìndù? (人間佛教‘的經典詮釋 ─ 是’‘援儒入佛’或是回歸印度？) (Scriptural Interpretation of ‘Buddhism for this World’: Is It ‘Applying Confucianism into Buddhism’ or Returning to Indian Buddhism?)’ Zhōnghuá Fóxué Xuébào (中華佛學學報) (Chung-Hwa Buddhist Journal) 13 (2000), pp. 479–504}, Chinese folk religious practices, and other religions, such as Daoism, Islam, and Christianity, W. Xie 謝文郁, ‘Rújiā Fùxīng hé Shàngdì Róngyào (儒家復興和上帝榮耀) [Revival of Confucian Teachings vs. the Glory of God]’ Jǔmù (舉目) (Behold) 50 (2011), pp. 18f]. See also S. Huang 黃詩茹, ‘Zhànhòu [Taiwan] Fójiào Sēngsú Guānxì de Zhuǎnbiàn Jí Yìhán: Yóu [Taichung] Liánshè, Dàzhuān Qīngnián Zhāijièhuì, Xiāngguāng Nísēngtuán Kǎochá (戰後台灣佛教僧俗關係的轉變及意涵：由台中蓮社、大專青年齋戒會、香光尼僧團考察)’ (The Professional Choice: The Changing Relation between Buddhist Clergy and Lay People in Postwar Taiwan) MA Thesis, (Taipei, 2008), pp. 121f.
7 This observation resonates with many Chinese Christians and is supported by a number of scholars, including Yáng Fènggaňg 楊鳳崗 as well as foreign missionaries and scholoars, such as Wright Doyle. See F. Yang 楊鳳崗, ‘Sānwèi Jīdū: Quánqiú Shìyězhōng de Zhōnghuá Wénhuà yǔ Jīdūjiāo (三味基督：全球視野中的中華文化與基督教) [Three-Flavoured Christ: A Global Perspective of Chinese Culture and Christianity]’ Shànghǎi Dàxué Xuébào (Shèhuì Kēxué Bǎn) (上海大學學報 {社會科學版} ) [Journal of Shanghai University (Social Science Edition)] 11/2 (2004), pp. 111f.; W. Doyle, ‘Cultural Factors Affecting Chinese Church Leaders’ Global China Center | Analysis (2006) Available at: http://tinyurl.com/jzb8zn2 Accessed 30.1.2016; W. Doyle, ‘Doyle Prayer Update: English-speaking Churches. [E-mail] Message to T I. Hwang ([email protected]). Sent Friday 17 June 2011, 17:52.’ (2011). However, there are many debates on the issue of Ruification of Christianity in Chinese communities. Since it is not the focus of this paper, some scholars and related sources are listed here for reference: Julia Ching (1934–2001), Willard G Oxtoby (1933–2003), Chankei Thong and Charlene L. Fu, and Toynbee and Ikeda. See Ching, J., Confucianism and Christianity: A Comparative Study (Tokyo, 1977), p. 143Google Scholar; Oxtoby, W. G., The Meaning of Other Faiths (Philadelphia, PA, 1983)Google Scholar; Thong, C. and Fu, C. L., Finding God in Ancient China: How the Ancient Chinese Worshiped the God of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI, 2009)Google Scholar; Toynbee, A. and Ikeda, D., Choose Life: A Dialogue Gage, R. L. ed. (New York, NY, 1989)Google Scholar.
8 Koh, B., ‘Confucianism in Contemporary Korea’ in Tu, W. M. (ed.) 1996 Confucian Traditions in East Asian Modernity: Moral Education and Economic Culture in Japan and the Four Mini-Dragons (Cambridge, MA, 1996), pp. 191–201Google Scholar.
9 X. Lin, ‘Rural Men in Urban China: Masculinity and Identity Formation of Male Peasant Workers’ PhD Thesis, (Birmingham, 2010).
10 W. Tu, ibid, (Albany, NY, 1985), pp. 24–25.
11 T. Hwang 黃宗儀, Chūtàn Hòuchuántǒng shòu Rújiā Qǐfā de Huárén Guānxìxìng Zìwǒguān de Diǎnfàn Zhuǎnhuàn (初探後傳統受儒家啟發的華人關係性自我觀的典範轉換) (An Exploration of a Paradigm Shift for the Post-Traditional Ru-Inspired Chinese Relational Selfhood)’ Táiwān Shénxué Lùnkān (台灣神學論刊) (Taiwan Journal of Theology) 43 ({forthcoming}), section 2.
12 W. Tu, ibid, pp. 19, 26.
13 Ibid, p. 19.
14 Cai, R. 蔡仁厚, Xīn Rújiā de Jīngshén Fāngxiàng (新儒家的精神方向) 2nd edition [The Spiritual Direction of New Ruists] (Taipei, 1984), p. 77Google Scholar.
15 Erickson, M. J., Christian Theology (Grand Rapids, 1983), p. 256Google Scholar.
16 The phrase moral cultivation is not part of the normal vocabulary employed in Protestant theology. However, it can be adopted and modified to fit a theological context, which leads us to create the term gracious moral cultivation, for the convenience of an effective multi-faith dialogue.
17 Cai, L. 蔡麗貞, Shízìjià Tǎoyàn de Dìfāng: Shìjìmò Jiàohuì Zhēnglùn Yìtí (十字架討厭的地方 ： 世紀末教會爭論議題) [The Offence of the Cross: The Debates among Churches in the End of the Century] (Taipei, 2001), pp. 211–120Google Scholar.
18 Yao, X., ‘Confucianism’ in Yao, X. (ed.) 2013 Routledgecurzon Encyclopedia of Confucianism: A-N (London, 2013), p. 1Google Scholar.
19 W. Tu, ibid, p. 52.
20 Grenz, S. J., The Moral Quest: Foundations of Christian Ethics (Leicester, 1997), p. 139Google Scholar.
21 Tu, W., ‘Ultimate Self-Transformation as a Communal Act: Comments on Modes of Self-Cultivation in Traditional China’ Journal of Chinese Philosophy 6/2 (1979), pp. 237–246 and W. Tu, 1985Google Scholar), ibid., pp. 45f, pp. 60–63.
22 Moltmann, J., The Crucified God: The Cross of Christ as the Foundation and Criticism of Christian Theology translated by Wilson, R. A. and Bowden, J. (New York, 1974), p. 275Google Scholar.
23 Robinson, E., A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament (London, 1852), p. 729Google Scholar.
24 Cox, H., When Jesus Came to Harvard: Making Moral Choices Today (Boston, MA, 2004), p. 123Google Scholar.
25 Grimm, C. L. W. and Wilke, C. G., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Being Grimm's Wilke's Clavis Novi Testamenti translated, revised, and enlarged by Thayer, J. H. Corrected edition (New York, 1889), p. 557Google Scholar.
26 Henry, M., Commentary on the Whole Bible Volume V (Matthew to John) (Grand Rapids, 2005 originally published in 1721), p. 96Google Scholar.
27 Walther, C. F. W., The Proper Distinction between Law and Gospel: Thirty-Nine Evening Lectures translated by Dau, W. H. T. from the German Edition (1897) (St Louis, 1929), pp. 249–250Google Scholar.
28 Y. Lin 林語堂, Lín Yǔtáng Dāngdài Hàn Yīng Cídiǎn (林語堂當代漢英詞典) Online editionn (Lin Yutang's Chinese-English Dictionary of Modern Usage) (Hong Kong, 1972) Available at: http://humanum.arts.cuhk.edu.hk/Lexis/Lindict/ Accessed 9.9.2017.
29 Reynolds, R., A Chinese-English Dictionary of the Chinese Bible in the Union Version (Taipei, 2016), p. 553Google Scholar.
30 Translated by James Legge in Legge, J., The Chinese Classics: Translated into English with Preliminary Essays and Explanatory Notes by James Legge: Vol.1 The Life and Teachings of Confucius The Facsimile PDF Version Based on 2nd Edition (Indianapolis, 2011), p. 105Google Scholar.
31 B. Jiang 蔣伯潛 translation and commentary, ‘Yǔyì Guǎngjiě Lúnyǔ Dúběn’(語譯廣解論語讀本) (Vernacular Chinese Translation and Exposition of Analects) in B. Jiang translation and commentary, 1952; Yǔyì Guǎngjiě Sìshū Dúběn (語譯廣解四書讀本) (Vernacular Chinese Translation and Exposition of The Four Books Reader) (Taipei, 1952), p. 103.
32 T. Hwang 黃宗儀, ‘ “Dìzhǔ” dōu Wēnróu? (地主」都溫柔?) [Are ‘Landlords’ All Gentle?]’ Jǔmù (舉目) (Behold) 81 (2017), pp. 12f.
33 M. Luther, ‘Preface to the Complete Edition of Luther's Latin Works Translated by A. Thornton’ Internet Christian Library (1545) Available at: http://tinyurl.com/h6yc59h Accessed 7.5.2016.
34 Chu, T. 朱韜樞, [Matthew] Yándú zhī Èr: Wǔ zhì Qī Zhāng (太福音研讀之二：五至七章) (A Study of Matthew {II}) (Taipei, 2015), pp. 35–100Google Scholar.
35 Zheng, Z. 鄭忠信, [Matthew]: Sìfúyīn Jiǎnmíng Dújīng Shìyì (Yī) (馬太福音：四福音簡明讀經釋義{一}) [Matthew: Concise Interpretation of Four Gospels Reader (1)] (Taichung, 2005), pp. 104–112Google Scholar.
36 Liu, Q. 劉清虔 ‘Duì Bāfú de Dàngdài Lǐjiě: Yīgè Jiàomù Shénxué de Guāndiǎn ‘對八福的當代理解：一個教牧神學的觀點’ [The Contemporary Understanding of the Beatitudes: A Viewpoint of Pastoral Theology]’ Dúzhě (獨者) (Solitudo) 15 (2008),. pp. 267–312Google Scholar.
37 Yu, M. L. 于力工, Tiānguó Xìnxī — [Matthew] Zhùshì (天國信息 — 馬太福音註釋) [Heavenly Kingdom's Message – A Commentary on Matthew] (Berkeley, CA, 2009), pp. 62–68Google Scholar.
38 Friest, W., 傅立德, Wendell, Yìwài zhī Fú: Fúyīn Shénxué Chéngshèngguān (意外之福：福音神學成聖觀) (The Unexpected Blessing: [Sanctification in Evangelical Theology]) (Taipei, 2012), pp. 23–24Google Scholar.
39 Ma, D. Y. C. 馬有藻, Tiānguó de Fúyīn: [Matthew] Quánshì (天國的福音：馬太福音詮釋) (The Gospel of the Kingdom of God: A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew) (Petaluma, 1994), p. 137Google Scholar.
40 Z. Zheng 鄭忠信, ibid., p. 258.
41 Chu, T. 朱韜樞, [Matthew] Yándú zhī Sān: Bā zhì Shí’èr Zhāng (馬太福音研讀之三：八至十二章) (A Study of Matthew {III}) (Taipei, 2016), pp. 359–360Google Scholar.
42 Chan, S. C. T. 陳終道, Tiānguó Jūnwáng: [Matthew] Fúyīn Jiǎngyì (天國君王：馬太福音講義) (The King of Heaven: Commentary on Matthew) (Hong Kong, 1993), pp. 291–292Google Scholar.
43 M. L. Yu, ibid., pp. 215f.
44 Huang, Z. 黃子嘉, ‘Yóu [Matthew] kàn “Jìn Tiānguó” zhī Yìyì (Bā) ‘由馬太福音看「進天國」之意義[八] [The Meaning of ‘Entering into Heaven’ by Matthew (8)]’ Huáshén Yuànxùn (華神院訊) (CES Newsletter) 258 (1992a), p. 2Google Scholar. Huang, Z., ‘Yóu [Matthew] kàn “Jìn Tiānguó” zhī Yìyì (Jiǔ) ‘由馬太福音看「進天國」之意義[九] [The Meaning of ‘Entering into Heaven’ by Matthew (9)]’ Huáshén Yuànxùn (華神院訊) (CES Newsletter) 260 (1992b), p. 2Google Scholar. Huang, Z., ‘Yóu [Matthew] kàn “Jìn Tiānguó” zhī Yìyì (Shí) ‘由馬太福音看「進天國」之意義[十] [The Meaning of ‘Entering into Heaven’ by Matthew (10)]’ Huáshén Yuànxùn (華神院訊) (CES Newsletter) 261 (1992c), p. 2Google Scholar. Huang, Z., ‘Yóu [Matthew] kàn “Jìn Tiānguó” zhī Yìyì (Shíyī) (由馬太福音看 ‘進天國’之意義[十一]’ [The Meaning of ‘Entering into Heaven’ by Matthew [11]]’ Huáshén Yuànxùn (華神院訊) (CES Newsletter) 267 (1993), p. 2Google Scholar.
45 D. Y. C. Ma, ibid., pp. 137–138.
46 Ng, E. Y. L. 吳羅瑜, Yìpú yǔ Jūnwáng — [Matthew] Zhùshì (Juǎn Shàng) (義僕與君王 — 馬太福音注釋 {卷上}) (Righteous Servant and King — A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew {1}) (Hong Kong, 1996), pp. 298–299Google Scholar.
47 i.e. “tiānguó yǐzài qiángyǒulìdì kāizhǎnzhōng, fán qiángyǒulìde juéqǔzhě jiù dézháole” “天國已在強有力地開展中，凡強有力地攫取者就得著了”
48 Z. Huang, ibid., (1993).
49 It is notable that this is the translation in the NIV1984, but in the NIV2011, the translation has been changed into ‘the kingdom of heaven has been subjected to violence, and violent people have been raiding it’.
50 Z. Huang, ibid.
51 D. Y. C. Ma, ibid.
52 C. L. W. Grimm and C. G. Wilke, ibid., p. 154.
53 Y. Lín, ibid.
54 National Languages Committee of Ministry of Education 教育部國語推行委員會, Zhòngbiān Guóyǔ Cídiǎn Xiūdìngběn (重編國語辭典修訂本) (Revised Mandarin Chinese Dictionary) Test edition in the Fifth Edition of Taiwan Academic Network (Taipei, 2015) Available at: http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi Accessed 16.9.2017.
55 R. Reynolds, ibid., p. 325.
56 I suggest that “jīngdéqǐ kǎoyàn de shēngmìng tèzhì” “經得起考驗的生命特質” (approvedness and tested characteristic of life) might be an even better translation because characteristic of life (“shēngmìng tèzhì” “生命特質”) gives a more appropriate meaning, without a sense of virtue or merit, in this context than character (“pǐngé” “品格”) does.
57 D. Y. C. Ma, ibid., p. 150.
58 ‘Knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance produces character, and character produces hope’ (NRSV Romans 5:3b-4).
59 Shen, P. 沈保羅, Quèzuò Bùyí de Zhēnlǐ — [Romans] (確鑿不移的真理 — 羅馬人書講解) (Cardinal Truth — A Study on the Romans) (Hong Kong, 2002), pp. 137–138Google Scholar.
60 Huang, D. 黃登煌, [Romans] (Shàng Juǎn) (羅馬書 {上卷}) [Romans (1)] (Taipei, 2014), pp. 173–174Google Scholar.
61 Fung, R. Y. K., 馮蔭坤 [Romans] Quánshì (Juǎn Èr) “羅馬書詮釋（卷貳）” 2nd edition (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans: Volume 2: Commentary on Romans 5-8) (Taipei, 2001), pp. 44–45Google Scholar.
62 Pao, J. H. Y. 鮑會園, [Romans] (Juǎn Shàng) (羅馬書 {上卷}) (Romans {1}) (Hong Kong, 1991), p. 168Google Scholar.
63 W. Tu, ibid., (1985), pp. 139–42, emphasis original.
64 For the concept of bao, Tu refers to Yang Liensheng's ‘The Concept of Pao as a Basis for Social Relations in China’. See Yang, L., ‘The Concept of “Pao” as a Basis for Social Relations in China’ in Fairbank, J. K. (ed.) Chinese Thought and Institutions (Chicago, IL, 1957), pp. 291–309, 395–397Google Scholar, emphasis original.
65 W. Tu, ‘Probing the ‘Three Bonds’ and ‘Five Relationships’ in Confucian Humanism’ in W. H. Slote and G. A. de Vos (eds.) Confucianism and the Family (Albany, NY, 1998), pp. 124–27.
66 L. Yang, ibid., p. 291, emphasis original.
67 Friest, W., Wendell 傅立德, Shàngdì de Dànéng: Fúyīn Shénxué Jīchǔ (上帝的大能：福音神學基礎) (The Power of God: [The Foundation of Evangelical Theology) (Taipei, 2013), p. 199Google Scholar.
68 T. Hwang 黃宗儀, ‘Liberating the Repressed Form of Self in Post-Traditional Ru-Inspired Chinese: A Theoretical Study of the Responses of Tu Weiming and Jürgen Moltmann’ PhD Thesis, (Oxford, 2018a), Chapters One and Two.
69 T. Hwang, ibid. (2017), pp. 12f. and (forthcoming), Section One.
70 T. Hwang, ibid. (2018), Chapters One and Two.
71 Saari, J. L., ‘Breaking the Hold of Tradition: The Self-Group Interface in Transitional China’ in Greenblatt, S. L., Wilson, R. W., and Wilson, A. A. (eds.) Social Interaction in Chinese Society (New York, 1982), p. 43Google Scholar. Jess Fleming, not a Ruist, argues that ‘Confucius would seem to agree … that one's personal identity is largely an artificial social construct (a mere matter of convention)’. See Fleming, J., ‘Self and (In)finitude: Embodiment and the other’ Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 2, (2002), p. 184Google Scholar.
72 T. Hwang, ibid., pp. 303f.
73 Lawler, S., Identity: Sociological Perspectives (Cambridge, 2008), p. 101Google Scholar, emphasis original.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 Ibid.
77 Ibid. Alison Young, a criminologist, recognises semblance and substance as “two orders of being” that should remain distinct; otherwise, a “misidentification of appearance and reality” happens. See Young, A., Imagining Crime: Textual Outlaws and Criminal Conversations (Thousand Oaks, CA, 1995), p. 112Google Scholar.
78 S. Lawler, ibid., p. 102.
79 Tan, J. Y., ‘Confucianism and Neo-Confucianism’ New Catholic Encyclopedia 2nd edition (Detroit, 2003), pp. 96–97Google Scholar.
80 Moulton, J. H. and Milligan, G., The Vocabulary of the Greek New Testament: Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources (London, 1929), p. 657Google Scholar, emphasis original.
81 E. Robinson, ibid., p. 854. C. L. W. Grimm and C. G. Wilke, ibid., p. 643. Liddell, H. G. and Scott, R. (eds.) A Greek-English Lexicon 8th edn (New York, 1882), p. 1631Google Scholar.