The difficulties of translating meaning, over a simple word on word translation, is one that is well appreciated by interpreters across various professions. The discipline of history, especially in relation to Intellectual History, suffers most acutely from this ailment. Not only does the historian have to interpret and translate the original text in its own right, they must consider the implications of previous interpretations made in the past. This conundrum and indeed, feature of semantics in history, can both be incredibly intriguing, and irritating at the same time. The vocabulary of politics and religion in particular, where the semantics of a single translation can have severe ontological and epistemological implications, as well as an impact on its efficacy.
The semantic translation employed and propagated by the Taiping Revolution regarding the word ‘God” provides a particularity interesting example that we can examine. Jean Basset, a Catholic missionary based in Sichuan, attempted a translation of the New Testament from the Catholic perspective. Thomas Reilly, described Basset’s translational choice for the word “God” as being “totally original and wholly puzzling”. Indeed, Basset opted to use the term “Shen (神)” rather than the Vatican endorsed “Tianzhu (天主) or the forbidden “Shangdi (上帝)”. The term “Shangdi” has obvious connotations to the position of the Emperor, “Huangdi (皇帝)” which explains explicit ban on its usage. [1] However, the choice of “Shen” made by Basset, does not necessarily evoke the imagery of ‘God Almighty’, from the Christian perspective. Instead, “Shen” can be used to refer to a generic spirit or ‘god’, in the animist sense, where a ‘god’ can inhabit a stream or a particular geographic feature. To utilize a semantically generic term for “God” seems demeaning, if understood in terms of status.
This problem is emblematic of why attempts to translate meaning between European languages and Chinese is challenging. The pre-existing connotations attached to certain words precludes their usage. This may have its roots in the fundamental differences in the understanding of religion and faith in East Asia, especially regarding differences in attitude towards mono and multi-theism. [2] There are very few philosophical or religious belief systems that have an omnipotent ‘God’ figure. The philosophy that perhaps has the most similar reverence for a single figure is Buddhism, where Shakyamuni Buddha, is revered. Yet, the state of ‘Buddhahood’ that Shakyamuni achieved is promoted to be available to all. Whereas the position of ‘God’ is intangible, unreachable, and to a significant degree, mysterious. [3]
[1] Reilly, Thomas H., The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom: Rebellion and Blasphemy of Empire., Seattle, 2004, pp 34
[2] Gethin, Robert, The Foundations of Buddhism, Oxford, 1998, pp9