Posted on September 23, 2008 - by Andy Cheung
On Chinese Bible Translations: Lessons for English Readers
For around 100 years, the most popular Chinese Bible translation has been the Chinese Union Version (CUV) and there is little evidence that this will change. Unfortunately, it is not the best translation and in many places employs poor phraseology, outdated terminology, or is just plain wrong. Most Chinese readers know this and often speak of how difficult it is to use. Parts of it are totally incomprehensible and those with English skills often use bilingual Chinese-English Bibles so that they can “check” its accuracy against a parallel English text.
Yet over the last ten years I have tried and failed to encourage numerous Chinese friends here in Britain to make use of the recent and much superior Chinese New Version (CNV - previously known as the New Chinese Version, NCV) which is readily available. Since its launch in 1992, the CNV has won the plaudits of many scholars but apparently failed to make any real inroads into the popularity of the CUV. Several other modern translations are also available (e.g TCV) but these have likewise been ignored. Why is this? And what do English speaking Christians have to learn from this?
Based on my experience, here are some reasons for Christians wanting to keep to the older, less helpful CUV:
1) an unwillingness to change from what they’re “used to”
2) an ignorance of the existence of better versions
3) a feeling that old-fashioned language is somehow more holy or appropriate (cf. preference among some Brits for thee and thou language)
4) a sentiment that the choice of version is not very important (but we must get the latest worship CD!)
5) a desire to use the most popular text among fellow believers
Of these, the last is reasonable since it’s easier to follow sermons or studies when using the same Bible but even this is not a great argument. After all, if we all stuck to that principle we’d never change our translations and English readers would still be using the Wycliffe Bible of 1382.
So my appeal to Christians of all languages is this: if we believe the Bible is the holy word of God, then ought we not try to obtain the best translation available and leave aside any unnecessary reverence for translations that might once have been helpful but have since been superseded?
p.s. Need an English translation? Go for the HCSB or the ESV.
Andy Cheung is a PhD student at the University of Birmingham researching Bible Translation, and a tutor in New Testament at the Midlands Bible College and Divinity School in the UK.
Visit My Website
October 23, 2008
Permalink
I felt like I just read a critique of the KJV bible. That is exactly the response I see from folks when the issue of choosing or upgrading a bible translation comes up. This is a great reference for me to use in the future when this issue arises. I had no clue that their existed such a problem among Chinese Christians over texts and translation. I thought it was an English-only phenomena in the West where the KJV is superior to the Hebrew-Greek codices.
In regards to the HCSB (a translation I like) I would like to mention that Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart did an short broadcast on the topic of translations and from my perspective were not quite fond of the HCSB. The broadcast was inspired by their latest ‘How to’ series on choosing a translation. Since they are on the TNIV committee it is no wonder why they advocate and strongly recommend the TNIV as a chief source or reference for bible students.
http://www.haventoday.org/prevbroadcast/1685
Visit My Website
February 18, 2009
Permalink
I love the NASB, and was pleased to read that Grant Osborne was a fan too. But have the ESV and the HSCB and NIV and KJV. Sometimes I take them interchangeably to church but I do prefer the NASB. When I was at a KJV preferred baptist church, so many times the pastor (who was suspicious of the NASB) would define KJV’s words with the exact phrasing found in the NASB.
Visit My Website
February 20, 2009
Permalink
Andy I’ve been meaning to reply on this one for a while now. I’ve just finished KYB and my last assignment was to do with the “King James Only” debate. I’ve tried to look at the arguments the proponents of this position use and not surprisingly I’m totally unimpressed. One thing you don’t say (and if Wikipedia is correct) is that the CUV was actually based on the English Revised Version. Now as far as I can make out, missionaries who make a first translation into a new language not surprisingly, if they are English speakers, will use an English translation as a basis; well you’ve got to start somewhere! So as far as I’m concerned that is not bad practice.
Now what I really wanted to say is to agree that by today’s standards, the CUV is probably not a great translation. Yet was it not the Bible by which millions have been saved? This of course lays bear the myth that the KJV is the only Bible which has ever brought revival. And of course there’s worse for the KJO brigade, if the Revised Version was used, that means Westcott and Hort – Shock Horror!! Most submissions I have read from the KJV onlyers usually include a tirade of character assassinations against these two scholars.
I can’t here resist comment on the Church in China. I’m no expert but certainly there were revivals during the first half of the 20th century. When I was at uni in the 70’s, I can remember the CU being encouraged to pray for China. The fact was that absolutely no news of the Church was coming out of China during the Cultural Revolution. No-one said it but I guess we feared the worst. Well the Lord had it in hand and most certainly the Church did survive. For me, it is the greatest miracle I have heard of whilst a believer.
Visit My Website
February 22, 2009
Permalink
David, thank you for your reply and the thoughtful comments. Interestingly, I did come across a website once of some fundamentalists who insisted that the CUV was the “wrong” Chinese translation. This is because it was based on Westcott and Hort. They insisted that the “best” translation is an earlier little-known translation into Chinese produced in the mid 19th century that was based on the King James.