{"id":830,"date":"2021-10-06T17:35:48","date_gmt":"2021-10-06T17:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/?p=830"},"modified":"2021-10-06T16:35:13","modified_gmt":"2021-10-06T16:35:13","slug":"the-taiping-and-the-etymology-of-the-christian-god-in-chinese","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/2021\/10\/the-taiping-and-the-etymology-of-the-christian-god-in-chinese\/","title":{"rendered":"The Etymology of the Christian God in Chinese"},"content":{"rendered":"

Translation, especially between languages as separate as English and Chinese, has never been a simple task, and it will never be one – however, this is not just in literary terms of conveying meaning, feeling and themes. This task, as demonstrated by the missionary arguments over the translation of God, can also have overt and important political overtones. The debate of how to translate God existed since the day of Matteo Ricci and the first Jesuit missions to China in the 15th century, and has involved many different terms. The most important and illustrative of these debates in my opinion is that of the Protestant missionary debates surrounding the terms Shangdi<\/em> and\u00a0Shen<\/em>, taking place in the 19th century.<\/p>\n

The term shen<\/em>, literally meaning god or spirit, was utilized in an early partial translation of the Bible by a Catholic missionary, Jean Basset (1).\u00a0 Thomas H. Reilly in his seminal work, The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom<\/em>\u00a0discusses the problem with this translation,\u00a0in that the term\u00a0shen<\/em> is somewhat generic term – without the signifier of capitalization that is present in English, Basset, and other translators that used this term had to rely on contextualization to signify\u00a0shen<\/em> as referring to the single Christian god (2). According to Reilly, even with contextualization, it was not always clear to Chinese audiences if shen<\/em> referred to the Christian God, or multiple gods (3).\u00a0 In short, it didn’t capture the essence of the Christian God – it’s singularity and it’s totality. Jean Basset’s partial translation was copied and spread amongst the missionary community, ending up with a Protestant missionary by the name of Robert Morrison, who would use Basset’s work as the basis for his full translation of the New Testament (4). Reilly presents that shen<\/em> was argued for in the missionary debates of the 19th century over translating God in a way, because of it’s generalness, that it was closer to the apostolic model of the New Testament – that Shangdi\u00a0<\/em>referred to a pagan god, and it could not be associated with the Christian God, being too mired in Chinese cultural baggage (5).<\/p>\n

Shangdi<\/em>, which can be literally translated to sovereign on high is described by Thomas H. Reilly as being ‘incendiary’ (6). While initially used by Matteo Ricci and the Jesuits before a Papal Decree banned it’s use, the term was most notably in Walter H. Medhurt and Karl G\u00fctzlaff’s translation of the Bible (7). In a manner of speaking the argument for Shangdi<\/em> drew on similar concepts to the argument for\u00a0shen<\/em>, just reframing them. The proponents of the term drew on it’s connection to Chinese culture as a strength, that Shangdi<\/em> described a single grand god – that the ancient Chinese that wrote about Shangdi<\/em> were monotheists writing about the Christian God (8). Most importantly, the term was also deeply politically charged, associated with the imperial title (9) the concept of the Mandate of Heaven (10), and when discussed in a Christian context, implies that the Chinese emperors are guilty of blasphemy (11) . Reilly presents the Protestant missionaries as being deeply aware of the political connotations of this term, citing several passages from Medhurst in particular to demonstrate this (12).<\/p>\n

The contrasts between the two terms are obvious – the neutral, yet bland\u00a0shen<\/em> and the more evocative, but baggage carrying Shangdi<\/em>. However the arguments for and against these terms I think paint a picture of how the missionaries approached the challenges of translation. Both terms were backed by an appeal to tradition – apostolic, western tradition in the case of\u00a0shen<\/em>, and the Chinese classics in the case of\u00a0Shangdi<\/em>. To Walter Medhurt, the political implications were not incidental, as much as they were a part of the overall goal of integrating the Christian God into Chinese culture. This perhaps can be seen as a minor saga in the key problem by Christian missionaries – if Christianity should be meshed with existing Chinese culture and systems, and if so, how to approach that task.<\/p>\n

1: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Birth of the Taiping Christian Movement.\u201d In The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom: Rebellion and the Blasphemy of Empire<\/i>, 54\u201377, 2014. (PG 58-59).
\n2: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Birth of the Taiping Christian Movement.\u201d (PG58-59).
\n3: Ibid.
\n4: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Birth of the Taiping Christian Movement.\u201d (PG60-61)
\n5: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d In The Taiping Heavenly Kingdom: Rebellion and the Blasphemy of Empire<\/i>, 78\u2013116, 2014. (PG82-83).
\n6: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d (PG80)
\n7: Ibid.
\n8: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d (PG83-84)
\n9: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d (PG80)
\n10: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d (PG85)
\n11: Reilly, Thomas H. \u201cThe Taiping Challenge to Empire.\u201d (PG88)
\n12: Ibid.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Translation, especially between languages as separate as English and Chinese, has never been a simple task, and it will never be one – however, this is not just in literary terms of conveying meaning, feeling and themes. This task, as demonstrated by the missionary arguments over the translation of God, can also have overt and … Continue reading “The Etymology of the Christian God in Chinese”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":34,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-830","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/830","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/34"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=830"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/830\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":855,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/830\/revisions\/855"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=830"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=830"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/transnationalhistory.net\/world\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=830"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}